As for the sled. Day one, Lisa and I did about 14 miles on the Nytro (round trip), accessing a fairly remote area in the western Elk Mountains that would normally require an overnight. Day two, we headed up to the heart of the Elks, sledding the flat approach to Pearl Basin then parking the Nytro and skinning Pearl Mountain. Despite a windy few days, we found enough boot-top powder to keep us happy. The snowmobile trails were well based so I couldn't do any deep powder riding, but I found enough soft stuff to start testing things.
Our Nytro is getting better as we make more suspension mods and learn how to ride it. Here Lisa gives it a shot.
Challenge with the Nytro comes down to it being designed (as most mountain sleds now are) for an aggressive rider who can throw the thing around. Probably a guy who weighs more than me, and has more arm strength and WAY better technique. At slower speeds, for example breaking trail through deep powder on a narrow road in dense timber, you don't always have the room to maneuver that way. Instead, you need stability, not extreme response to every body weight shift. In other words, given such conditions you don't need a sled that feels like you're kneeling on a bowling ball, but rather one that tends to track straight even when one ski submarines or the trail suddenly tilts, in the dark, with five feet of room to either side of your line.
Basic mods, shortening the limiter straps (left arrow) gives you less of that 'riding the bowling ball' feeling, while softening the rear/front suspension allows it to ride slightly lower and easier when driven by a smaller framed guy such as myself, or gal such as Lisa.
So why didn't we get something other than a tweaky mountain sled? Simple, everyone's advice was to indeed get this type of rig, as mountain sleds are generally lighter weight and simply more versatile than an even bigger "trail" or "work" snowmobile. They also told me a mountain sled would take some getting used to, and we'd need to at least adjust the suspension, install a bar riser for more side-to-side leverage and better ergonomics while riding in the standing position.
Fly Racing handlebar riser installed. This rig also has a pivot to adjust for/aft position of the bars, essential for fine tuning your ergonomics. I love this mod. Riding in the standing position this weekend was much more relaxing, and I could feel the powerful side leverage when I needed it.
Fine, and noticeable improvements, except the Nytro has one quirk that's tough to deal with. If you're moving slow on even a moderate sidehill, and turn downhill in a certain way, the sled will quickly tip over on it's side, or even do a 1/2 roll. Sure, with room to maneuver and some speed, modern sled technique includes moves equal to ski technique, such as sidehilling using counter steering (see vid). But I'm talking situations with little room to move, basically creeping around.
Nytro rolled over on terrain this flat, despite my best efforts at preventing the roll. Righting the sled took two men -- I couldn't have done it by myself without rigging a rope system or digging a large pit to undermine the highside.
Sometimes the Mr. Tippy roll happens in comedic slow motion, with me hanging off the high side like some guy on a competition sail boat — with absolutely no effect. Other times the event occurs dangerously fast. And once you're over, you've got more than 400 lbs of dead weight you're trying to rectify. Adding insult, there will always be a snowshoer or x-c skier who'll come by just about the time you're standing there scratching your head trying to engineer a way to roll the thing back up.
I have similar problems, deep powder in tight spots where I have to control my speed cause me to flip constantly. Especially when I'm following someone who is constantly stopping to navigate.
Dongshow, what seems to happen with us is, one, the outside ski sinks in the pow or muck, and two, then turned at a certain angle it provides very little support and causes the sled to lean/pivot into a roll. The aftermarket skis such as SLP Powder Pro Plus are said to help with this problem in various ways, especially by providing more support and better turning grip in deep snow (which keeps you out of the bad spots). Using a wider ski stance helped me quite a bit, but of course may work against you when you're fun performance riding. I tried a stiffer front suspension as well, but softening it seemed to help more, probably because I can shift the sled weight easier and the heavy front end rides a bit lower so it has a better center of gravity.
The other thing we need on the Nytro is ski tails with more rise, so we can reverse farther in the powder with the ski tails digging in. None of the skis I've seen have much of this, probably for performance reasons.
I hear ya on tipping these things over. I have found that when solo often just digging underneath the sled will be enough to tip it back over. This will allow the snow to 'cave in' when you push it. Usually about a foot of digging will be enough to get it upright. You may need to did out a little 'runway' afterwards to get going.
I learned all these things as a brief owner of a smoke belching, underpowered 600cc mountain max. I found until I have more money for a nice sled that I spent more time digging it out that I would have if I would have skinned the extra 4 miles.
Scott, agree, you've got to be REALLY careful about where you expect a sled to take you for skiing. Otherwise you'll use more energy than just skinning a mile or two. I've learned to be very conservative. The other thing I've learned is, just as with skiing, to be very sensitive to snow conditions. When the snow is based the snowmobile is a much more versatile tool for skiing access. In deep powder it can be nearly useless, though fun to drive for its own sake.
One thing I like about owning a 4-stroke with electric start and reverse is it's a lot more appropriate for short blasts up a few mile from a trailhead, as it's takes so little energy to use, is quiet, and no smell. I haul it around in my pickup, so no trailer hassles either! Other than the stability issue, it's a joy compared to the old days.
Great post as usual. My sled-ski partner rides a Yamaha Phazer and I often refer to myself as the Phazer Support Crew due to its ability to spontaneously roll. Mods help as much as technique I have found.
One quick, somewhat off topic question. A crew of us from Montana has reserved the Friends Hut for the first week in April. We're planning on coming in from the Crested Butte side so we can visit with friends there (I have your guide book and it sounds much better from Ashcroft but oh well). My question, is it worth the effort to haul one sled down to tow into the summer trailhead or just slog it out? How much would we really gain in April by doing so? Also, I'm sure you know a couple ski bums that would potentially like to make a quick buck for a ride from the Ashcroft TH to Carbondale where we might stash a car. Could you put us in touch? We're thinking that if we have good traveling conditions we would like to head out the Castle creek route instead of back tracking to CB.
Lou – if you don't mind….we change the date on the next CB town rando race from the 5th to the 12th. Had a great turnout for the first one, folks are using it for Elk Mtn Grand Traverse training, etc., etc.
How was the skiing up near Pearl? How did this past Monday's wet snow bond up there (it rained here in Gunnison that day)? We skied over the saddle at Copper Cr (NW Pearl Mtn) on to CB last Sunday (prior to the wet snow event on Monday) under gorgeous conditions and no signs of instability. Real bummer the Roaring Fork Avy Center isn't on it own (now part of CAIC ??), as there is no place I've seen to get local observations as to what's happening "over there".
Hi Wick, will do. Things were more stable than I thought they'd be, saw a few agro lines had been skied, much of the snow was winded but still nice, some breakable crust that was less than ideal. Worst thing about lack of avy center is not being able to get up on Saturday morning and get a current report. But oh well, I skied most of my life without avalanche reports so it's not a deal breaker, besides, we never had a good report for Marble anyway (other than looking at yours).
I was up in your neck of the woods last weekend and had a question for you. My party (of 3) spent one night at Green Wilson, then 2 nights at Friends. On our return to the Ashcroft TH, we toured over the SE col on Star Peak and into the Taylor Drainage. From there, we climbed over the Star-Taylor Ridge via a beautiful, craggy col. My question is, does this col have a name? I know there are at least 3 prominent cols on that ridge. This is the middle one. From the Taylor side, it looks like 3 sharp rock fins. From the Ashcroft side it looks more like a right-handed mitten with a big spiky thumb.
Regardless of the name, it was a glorious tour. Perfect weather, perfect conditions, wonderful company, and terrain that would make even the Euros envious.
Nice Job Matt! When the snow is good there is nothing like the Elks, just so riven with terrain features yet so skiable. I actually think the snow has been better in recent years, perhaps because of global warming. I don't know about the naming, I'll bet the locals have come up with at least one, any Ashcroft skiers care to comment? Sean?
Jeff, if your'e towing people and only using one sled, you probably only save about 3 miles on the Brush Creek route by using a sled on the CB side, since the terrain gets a lot more complex and difficult to ride after that, but it using a sled could save some flat tedious stuff depending on where the plow turnaround is that time of year. I'd say if you don't know the route and terrain you'd be better off just slogging.
That said, a really good trick for sled access to Friends is to actually sled up the Cement Creek Road to 10,200 feet, park the sled, then take a side drain (see map) that makes a really nifty ski route to the hut that includes a small aesthetic saddle you ski over then down to the hut. But again, if you've only got one sled and you're trying to two a group, getting this done via snowmobile might be too much work. Best would be to recon or talk to a local who knows it from day-to-day.
We have two SAR snowmobiles and a few of our members have snomos as well. We have used them on SAR missions and trainings a few times and I have a few quesitons/comments. I am not a rider, I usually end up getting towed behind these things.
How do you get the second skier in if you just have one sno mo? None of our machines is big enough for a second skier to ride on them for any distance. Our longest tow in was about 5 miles over a trail bumbed out by other snow mos. I was pretty tuckered after that. The SAR sno mo purchase decision was advised by a sled head who got us a reltively high peformance machine (I don't know exactly what). Would we have been better off with a utility sled that could handle a second rider? We have had a victim ride out on our sled for a a couple of miles in an emergency, but my understanding is that we shouldn't do this on a regular basis. The other problem is that on packed trails at slow speeds our sled is often overheating.
Whew Tony, IANASN (I am not a sled neck), but I do know from my own SAR experience that any SAR worth its carabiners should have some sledneck volunteers who work as an advance team with high performance sleds and riders, then follow that with your utility sleds. As for what you own as a team, I'd say you'd want one performance mountain sled and one model with a two-up seat for ambulatory evacs (I did one of those once as a SAR volunteer and it worked great, just someone sick at a hut and they rode double out to the trailhead). As for overheating of modern sleds, just remember they cool by the snow the track throws on the heat exchanger, so you need ice scratchers deployed if you're on a hard surface trail, and may need some cooling system mods if you're pressing the sled into service it wasn't designed for.
As for towing skiers, yeah, if the trail is moguled it can be really bad. But riding two-up on a performance sled can be tough and very tippy. Trick is to either ride tandem or have one person scrunch up into the handlebars so their weight is nearly entirely over the skis. Even then it'll sometimes be too tippy, and if you do go over someone can get hurt 'cause it'll be such a tangle.
Lou, the best piece of advice I can give you is to take some time with some slednecks to really learn to ride your sled. I did this and now I can go just about anywhere on mine. As you alluded to, it has everything to do with technique and little to do with strength (until you get it stuck). I know a 15 year old boy who's 125 lbs dripping wet and that kid can toss around a 500 lb sled like nobodys business. If you want to ride a sled effectively with confidence you gotta take the time in some soft snow conditions to learn, and take your partner with you so you can also learn to tandem well. It's all about confidence. The hardest part is giving up those soft snow days when you really wanna be skiing.
The best way to tow people in, in my experience, is with climbing harnesses and bike innertubes. Put the innertube though the main hard point on your harness and then a "Z" configuration with the tow line through the innertube.
Yeah, we use the bike inner tubes technique, even without the harness it works well, you just rig the tube so you can put it around your hips and pass a hank of rope through it in such as way that if you let go it easily comes off. With a harness it works better, but that's one more item of gear we usually don't carry.
Tony, I would recommend riding "Canadian style", i.e. riding with 2 side by side. One person has the throttle and the mountain bar in the middle, while the other has the brake and the mountain bar. Works great, I've gotten up some pretty crazy stuff that way with a friend who is much better rider than me and was doing most of the work.
Jeff, I'll agree with Lou regarding Brush creek getting difficult pretty quickly. Cement, on the other hand, would be a good call.
I'll agree with Pundy, too- I know I should spend more time on my snowmobile (for the sake of snowmobiling) than I do, it's just that I'd rather ski than snowmobile!!
Just a fellow from up Idaho way enjoying reading about your part of the country and your sled adventures. I'm on about my 3rd or 4th sled now. Started with an old fan cooled ski doo and now have a fairly new ski doo summit rev that I really like. But I can see that if and when I can justify it with the other half of my recreation budget dept. (read wife) then I'll be looking at the 600 etec summit ski doo puts out. Emmisions of a 4 stroke, 120 hp, 425 lbs. dry weight. Add oil once a season, it is that clean. Flickable is how I've read it described by test riders. I don't work for them, just had really good luck with their sleds. One other thing you might do if you haven't already is invest $90.00 in a left hand throttle. It opens up a lot of sidehills to ride that before were just a major pain in the neck. If you don't have one you can always have your partner put both of their feet on the uphill ski of the sled and hang onto whatever they can, bumper , hood, your leg and that will get that ski weighted into the hill so you're able to get past that tough stretch. I gotta say my sled puts out less smoke than some of the old cars I follow down the road. Besides I ride my bicycle to work and what not as much as possible. My idea of carbon offset. But really I need to get rid of some personal fat anyway. Have Fun.
Lou, cool video about countersteering and sidehilling. Countersteer is the way my sportbike turns (push with left hand to turn left), but I had no idea it is used with sleds. I have sidehilled for years the way the guy in the video said not to and will often park the sled on the road if a tough (for me) sidehill blocks my way rather than risk putting it in a ravine.
I am looking to put the fat boy springs on by RMK 800 since I often double ride and the combined weight of two riders and gear can be close to 450 lbs. Some tows in can be pretty long on easy roads and double up can be easier. It depends on how whooped out the trail is. I like the idea of shortening the limiter strap so the sled does not sit as high when ridden single, but will still be in the right range when loaded heavily. Thanks for the good tips.
Lou, those are some of the additions I have added. The handle bar riser, because the mountain sleds are designed to be ridden in a standing position and the ice scratchers to keep it running cool. And the throttle is your friend, giving it gas will get you out of trouble… most of the time.
How about a small sleigh or sled to pull behind your snowmobile. I have seen skiers using one in Montana to access, it was like a dog musher sled. They carried their skis in the sled and stood on the back.
We were going to go with 1 snowmobile between my wife and I, but decided it was safer to each ride. So we now have 2 Polaris RMKs, each with board racks. We took time the first 2 years to learn to ride em, it made a difference. We do carry a rope and climbing pullies in case of a badly stuck snowmobile.
I just gotta ask. Where does the sledhead-waahhh-2 stroke-decibelmax-wildlifespooking approach transition to the self-propelled ethos? At the top of the run? At a suitable place to skin? At the best high mark?
No judgment here – I burn fossil fuel getting the trailhead, too. Just wondering.
Jack, for me, I park it in the valley floor to maximize the ski after I skin up. The 3-15 mile road grade approach on the road I sled in. In the spring I'll often drive the same paved or easy dirt road. If I want the wilderness/wildlife experience, I leave the road and go into a wilderness area. There are plenty of long slogs that qualify as backcountry skiing and are often very enjoyable in their own right, but the snow covered roads in the valley floors are legal sled access and not the best sking in my opinion.
I agree with you, the trail into Pearl Basin is packed hard this year, not all by me either. USFS has been having trouble up here with snowmobile riding as the area gets more popular with the BC crowd and sled tech gets better. I'm all about access snowmobiling, but even I know I can't stick within the legal riding corridor above timberline on Pearl Pass. So thanks for mentioning touring up to Pearl Pass under human power. How did you like the footbridge mods, if you noticed?
Is the col you're talking about north facing and draining into Castle Creek above Pinecreek Cookhouse? All those north facing cols on the ridges off Star are great skiing, but I usually don't tell many people that I've been skiing back there; it's kinda regarded as a dangerous area with "agro" lines. The north facing col on the far east is the Iron Mine valley, at one point the iron mine was going to extend into there. I think that's what you're talking about.
Jack, around here it's usually pretty obvious where to park a snowmobile when using it for ski or climbing access. Aside from the frenzy of sled assisted skiing done back on Richmond Ridge behind Aspen Mountain, they're usually used that way just to get up a snow covered road that's open in summer to auto traffic, and perhaps driven across a lower angled area from said road to the base of a mountain. More, our Wilderness boundaries alone dictate where you stop motorized travel, if nothing else. Though you may see sport riders violating the Wilderness line, folks parking sleds for skiing are not going to leave their sled sitting there in legal Wilderness these days as those laws are enforced when possible. In other parts of North America I've heard it's sometimes a tougher call, as firmer snow and more forgiving and legal terrain allow snowmobiles to range wider even while towing skiers or being ridden double.
What's more, ski hut builders here in Colorado frequently (if not nearly always) build their huts near or directly adjacent to legal snowmobile trails. The backcountry skiing hut users then share those trails with snowmobiles, and there you go, unhappy campers. This trend (of building ski huts near snowmobile trails) might be winding down, if so that's a bit of good news.
In all, I've not seen that it's that difficult for us all to "coexist," as that bumper sticker frequently seen around places such as Carbondale and Boulder asks us to do.
Ron, THANKS, I was wondering about that oil leak. Ours definitely dripped some when left over for a while during one really bad roll. Will certainly fix that, as it kinda makes a mockery of the environmental friendliness of the 4-stroke (though the amount of dripping oil is actually pretty minimal).
Amos, the footbridge looked much more sled and skier friendly, thanks if that was you who fixed it up, always wondered about sticking a ski into the railing or just going off it! Was that you up there on Sunday? There were a couple of sleds parked at the bottom of Backyard just past your place, one had an expired registration, tisk tisk.
We were planning on stopping by your place if you were there, but no tracks leading in or out from your door and no smoke coming from the stack. We parked our sleds fairly low, just past the pond. Probably go a bit farther next time but I'm really not that into driving past the huts full of non motorized folks when I can easily skin that section. We did see some sledders coming from over Pearl Pass, and yep, they were not on the road.
BTW, for sled skiing access from Aspen side, the vicinity of your place (or lower) is the best area to stop and park, in my opinion. If Pitkin County and the USFS decide to close the Pearl Pass road to snowmobile use (could happen, as it appears Pitco has never met a snowmobiler they like), they'll hopefully leave it open up to you.
I see this all the time, as well as sledders trespassing on private property. As a backcountry skier, I can't catch them, let alone get close enough to get their registration number (required to file a complaint). Nor am I about to turn around and follow their tracks four miles back to the trailhead to get their license plate numbers. The solution is that the sledding community (you guys) need to police your own rogue elements.
Andrew, self policing is always something to consider, but in the case of sledders much of that would be like an at-home social drinker trying to hang out at bars and catch people drinking and driving. In other words, the core slednecks who rage over Wilderness boundaries are an entirely different group and culture than those of us tooling around on snowcovered roads looking for parking spots. What's more, even on a sled you're not going to catch those guys unless you're one of them and have a bigger motor. When they know they're in legal Wilderness or off a designated travel corridor they tend to sting quickly and are gone before you know it.
Lou- I'm looking to do the Burnt Mountain to Buttermilk tour this weekend. You blogged about it a few years ago and promised a map and waypoints for the best line. Do you have those, by any chance?
Sheesh, I broke my promise! You'll have to make it an adventure. It's not that tough, just know that if you drop too low on the northerly aspects you'll hit the Government Trail, so you want to trend into the Sugar Bowls area just before Buttermilk so you can get back on the ridge for the final bit into the Buttermilk ski area.
Thanks for the reminder about this, I'll go do it again soon. More, if I have time later today I'll grab a few known waypoints off a map and publish here.
I fully understand that. However, rogue sledders are what causes people like me to support anti sledding legislation, and for reference, I own a sled. It's no real skin off my nose if sleds are banned and the people who really have something to lose by it are the law abiding riders, such as the readers (hopefully) on this website. What can be done is for the sledding community to take a firm public stand against rogue riding.
Andrew, I'd agree that the sledder will listen to other sledders. To a degree, anyway… They also wake up when their friends get busted. I've seen that happen on Independence Pass, where they used to rogue ride in the spring after the paved road opens, but they don't anymore after a bust (though the place gets hammered in winter when no one is around but sledders — sort of like, what is the sound of a snowmobile in Wilderness if no one hears it? (grin).
As for supporting legislation, I'd caution anyone that making more laws about recreation is something we should all think long and hard about, as if that becomes a trend the pointer could swing around back to us skiers for who knows what reason. Besides, at least in this area the rogue Wilderness riding is already highly illegal, it's just not enforced. Perhaps the Wasatch is different in that way, and you need more laws for some reason?
I have to say that from my limited knowledge of the Wasatch, I sure don't see why I'd want a sled for skiing there (other than bringing mine to join friends for cabin access), but I guess the Uintas are a different story?
I'm no sled expert, but I do use an older touring sled for occasional access. I tuned the suspension this year with good success by shortening the front limiter strap and stiffening the rear suspension. This increases pressure on the skis and gives better steering ability. Snowmobiles really have three suspension points; the skis, the front track, and the rear track. If the front limiter straps are too loose and the rear springs too soft the 'bile wants to "wheelie" any time the power is on. Any throttle at all will try to "jack up" the front track and unweight the skis, thus the limiter straps. Once the skis are unweighted then your trying to balance on the track and it's really tippy, ( the "bowling ball" ?). If you really want the skis to bite, crank the front straps until the 'bile is bridging between the skis and the rear track. The more track suspension travel, the more track traction and the more power you have the more it wants to wheelie.
In my non-expert opinion, full bore mountain sleds are not ideal for use as utility or transportation vehicles or as little "snow trucks". They are highly engineered for aggressive full bore riding one -up. The video is a good example; listen to the opening music ,also notice the skull stickers on the sled, or how about "hold the throttle half to 3/4 open", way aggro. I think they are the "crotch rockets" or maybe the full on motocross bikes of the snowmobile world. Asking them to work in a utility role just seems like barking up the wrong tree.They are perfect for "crossovers" or people who are just as interested in sledding as skiing, or as I've been told more than once … "sometimes I don't even take my skis off and just sled instead". All the crossovers I know ride single, no towing, rarely side by side tandem.
I don't know if they make them anymore but, simple , light, torquey, low geared, utility sleds are ideal for transportation in my experience. When the snow is too deep or steep that's when the skins go on. ( Although it is amazing what an old Skidoo Tundra and it's ilk can get through with seasoned hands). I also have an old twin track Alpine, unstoppable in any kind of snow but also almost unsteerable and at 850 lbs if you get it stuck …….
Can you go into more detail on how you use bike inner tubes when towing a skier? In particular, I am a bit confused as to how you attach the tow rope to the inner tube in a "z" confirguration such that the toe rope can be easly released. I have wrapped toe ropes around ski poles and gripped over the wrap so that the rope unravels if you let go, but I can't see how to do that with an inner tube.
Tony, I'll blog that tomorrow! Good idea. So all, please hold comments on towing methods till tomorrow morning's blog post! I'll do some photo diagrams and if anyone wants to email me any drawings or photos please do so and I'll publish.
Dan, good thoughts, thanks! The reason why we got the mountain sled is that in many situations we have to break out a trail before we can tow on it, and a full-on high performance sled seemed the way to go for that — so that's what we did. My son and I also enjoy riding, so there was a bit of that factor as well, along with the fact that the only work and utility sleds we saw were huge heavy beasts that did not impress us.
The Wasatch sledding issues have more to do with trespassing on private property. Two years ago, a section of private property which was completely over run with rogue bilers who thought nothing of trimming out few trees so they could blast around the well marked "PRIVATE PROPERTY" gate. That summer, a work party assembled a massive fence which has cut down (but not stopped) the rogue 'bilers, as well as putting up more signage. It seems ridiculous to have to go to this extent, almost like putting a "Do Not Cut" sign on every tree just to prevent a few morons from claiming they didn't know it was illegal to chop down them down.
Another good case in point was the recent illegal sled assisted ski descent of Mt. Moran in the Grand Teton National Park which did zero to further the sledding cause in the Park.
Sorry to hear about those rogue sledders on private property, that really gets my ire up! Hmmm, isn't trespassing why they invented shotguns? Seriously, there are already strong laws that protect private property, so this sounds like an enforcement issue rather than anything to do with making more laws. Ditto for Mount Moran?
And all said I agree, this sort of stuff needs to stop. It indeed just results in hate towards the use of a frequently elegant and useful tool.
I just emailed you a pic of the system we use to tow our SAR members around.
HOpefully it makes it through your spam filter in time to be useful.
Rogue sledders are crossing the entire (WA) Alpine Lakes Wilderness, and also are busting through many other WIlderness areas. I have seen snowmobile tracks at 10000 ft + on Mt Adams, a few miles above the orange Wilderness Boundary sign. Snowmobliers brag openly at snowmobile shops and local bars, where one may hear tales of amazing snowmobile climbs on pristine peaks in Wilderness. One day 3 years ago I parked my snowmobile at a summer Trailhead and walked on randonnee skis 3 hrs.up a peak with a friend, and as we sat on that Wilderness summit we watched two snowmobiles riding across two Wilderness drainages. At the time I called on my cell the Sheriff and USFS, both said there was nothing they could do. I took down the License numbers of the haul rig at the TH, gave it to USFS Law Enforcement, he said there was nothing he could do. USFS in Central WA on the Wenatchee NF has obtained Grant money and have started some Enforcement Patrols and actually issued some Citations.
It does seem that outside of the USFS Wilderness folks is less alarm in USFS about the problem of snowmobile trespass, at least in my limited experience. There is also apparently a lot of "we can't do anything about it" attitude based on the number of times that I have heard that said by USFS folks.
Thanks for the replies, Lou & John. I use my car, chair lifts, snowcats, fixed wing aircraft, helicopters, but mostly muscle power to take me to the powder. Haven't used a sled (yet), but they open an incredible amount of AK terrain.
It always amazes me how some enviros spend their lives clamoring for ever more legal Wilderness, while in the meantime what legal wilderness we have is filled with snowmobiles, man made bridges, funky sign posts, water diversion installations, private land inholdings, outfitter horses eroding the trails, overgrown unnatural forests, poaching mountain bikes, and more. It's sort of a fantasy vs reality situation. As always, my opinion is we've got enough legal wilderness and it's time to exert all that energy toward managing what we have and enforcing existing laws. Once we get to that point, we could then debate things like having mechanized corridors for snowmobiles and areas where mountain bikes were allowed — and creating more legal Wilderness.
Thanks Lou for your great website- I check it most days over here in Durango. Having skied the Teton area, Cameron Pass, and now the Southern San Juans now for 26 years, I find myself more disturbed each year by more & more of the powerful mtn. snowmobiles poaching their way into non-motorized restricted areas. The San Juan NF folks could easily catch these guys with good binoculars, a few short ski-in locations and staking out the few parking lots. For whatever reasons, enforcement is not a priority, despite complaints and good signage. With no enforcement and blatant violations, I think the conflict between users is going to escalate. I am not anti-sled at all, but a backlash against irresponsible snowmobile use may be in order. Between the ATV, jet skis, & "biles the silence, clean air, and idea of earning with sweat your location in our wildlands has been significantly degraded. I hope your website can help us walk the razor's edge of having responsible motorized use while rallying support against the growing trend of hi-marking (& 'lanching) alpine bowls, poaching into restricted areas, and generally having unrestricted access on every acre of non-wilderness Forest. The recent Jackson Lake-Mt. Moran incident illustrates that even backcountry diehards are willing to bend/break National Park rules for their own recreational goals. How do we expect Joe the 'Biler to follow rules when even backcountry mountaineers can't resist? My answer: Backcountry skiers need to organize (like Access Fund, BLue RIbbon Coalitio, etc.) and get enforcement moved up. Maybe we need to donate dollars to an an enforcement program. Teton Pass now has a ski ambassador who tries to smooth some of the rough edges up there.
Curt, exactly. Officials need to enforce our existing laws or at least make more effort at it. That's the biggest problem with all this. Once the laws are enforced, we can move on to figuring out where the real problems are with user conflicts. When it's chaos, it's tough to get a clear picture.
I am a Forest Service employee and will add that on the White River NF we do take snowmobile intrusions into the wilderness seriously. Around Aspen we have caught 10 riders thus far in both the Collegiate Peaks Wilderness and Hunter-Fryingpan Wilderness and have issued tickets to the riders at $500 so hopefully word will get out. We also plan to patrol Pearl Basin this sping as well. Granted, it's probably a drop in the bucket but we're trying. Enjoy the mountains (legally!) and happy skiing!
Tim, your enforcement is definitely more than a drop in the bucket (though it's indeed obvious there could more.) That one time you ticketed those guys sledding upper Lost Man (Linkins Lake) in the spring…I've not seen a deep intrusion there since, though there were some kids up there last spring sledding about a mile in past the big W boundary. I think someone might have warned them off as they never came back.
If you think that the guys riding in the mountains are angrily trying to destroy the wilderness, you have yet to open your eyes to the athletic ability of these riders. Throwing around a 470+ pound machine is no easy task, and the stuff these guys are doing is truly amazing. Just go on google and search slednecks. Don't get me wrong, illegal riding is NOT okay, however, you shouldn't think that these guy don't work for their peaks. Legal mountain riders=good. Illegal riders/poachers=bad.
BTW, the '08 nytro had some front end issues, thats is probably the main cause of the tippyness.
Hi Max, thanks for the comment. I indeed do respect the athleticism of modern mountain snowmobiling. It's become amazing! Like I say, let's get it all happening legally, then after that we'll work on any remaining user conflicts.
We got the Nytro front end ball joint recall done and it seemed to help. Now I'm trying to figure out the best way to prevent it from dumping oil every time it tips over. Can't believe Yamaha didn't engineer something that helps with that — it's a mountain sled and all mountain sleds spend time on their side at one time or another! But I've got several solutions to pick from, thanks to sledneck culture (grin)!
Its funny to read about this all of a sudden- I was chatting a few weeks ago with a couple of the park rangers at Elfin Lakes, here in BC, and they were talking about the highlight of their job being the opportunity to chase down some sledders making an illegal intrusion.
We all chuckled about how difficult it must be to chase down a sled while on tele skis, but I guess they get their man often enough; its an area where I don't see too many sleds where they aren't supposed to be.
Simon, let's just hope that anyone in law enforcement doesn't find chasing citizens to be TOO enjoyable!
i have a 2012 T570 arcitc cat snowmobile and it is very tippy in turns and in deep snow what can i do to fix that problom, would wider skis help or ajust something, we call it the tippy T, NOT FUN TO RIDE AT ALL, please e-mail me back,or post on this ad,thanks.
Lou – Do you remember what was involved with widening your ski stance? Did this require replacing or adjusting parts? I have the same issue on a 2007 Apex.


The flexibility of the arbitration process invites parties to split up or bifurcate their cases into parts, ensuring that issues that don't need to go to trial aren't the subject of wasted time and attention.
'If the amount in dispute is small and the issues are uncomplicated, the time and costs of two processes cannot be justified,' says Kathleen Kelly.
It's a practice now gaining the attention of judges looking for more efficient ways to manage their cases but it's not an option that's right for every matter, even in arbitration.
"It speaks to the power of arbitration that the parties can decide the process," says mediator and arbitrator Barry Fisher. "Courts generally don't like it.
Stanley Tessis, a partner at Laxton Glass LLP, believes arbitration is the perfect forum to bifurcate.
Mediator and arbitrator Kathleen Kelly says there are numerous factors to consider in determining the appropriateness of bifurcating arbitration proceedings.
"In some cases, the issues of determination of liability and damages are so interlinked that the determination of one cannot reasonably be determined without making a finding about the other.
Fisher has recently adopted the approach in some commercial arbitration matters by using what he calls a decision tree. "There were a couple of key issues to decide to determine liability.
We tackled one discrete issue at a time. It seemed the natural way of doing things. For example, we had to determine the interest rate on a certain date. The spread was huge.
Fisher suggests that in commercial arbitration, there's a natural bifurcation between liability and damages. Tessis also sees its application in insurance arbitration where there's bifurcation between the questions of whether one company is entitled to be indemnified and the quantum to be indemnified.
"There's no point going through quantum if there is no liability," he notes.
Tessis also says that in insurance matters, there are always a lot of preliminary issues.
"For example, where one insurance company is trying to get back statutory accident benefits that it paid to another insurance company, you must first determine the question of whether there is a limitation period.
Meanwhile, Kelly says the process can help create a range of damages that will limit the risks of the decision going below an acceptable and agreed-upon lower limit and going above an acceptable top amount.
Sydney Baxter, a mediator and arbitrator based in Ottawa, doesn't see the process used much in labour and employment arbitration.
He recalls declining a request for bifurcation in a case involving the introduction of computers in the Ottawa Public Library that had resulted in staff being exposed to pornographic images accessed by the patrons.
Kelly agrees that it's not always time- or cost-effective to split the proceedings up. "When the evidence and expert opinions are such that the issues cannot be separated, economies of time, direct costs, and opportunity costs cannot be achieved.
Fisher acknowledges that the process can take a little bit longer but still insists it can remain more cost-effective. "In one case, I felt bad that the process took so long, but the lawyers said that it was still so much better than court proceedings. It allows them to set the timing.
The parties might not want to go to court straight away. As long as they are choosing the period of time when it happens, the certainty of the scheduling helps them."


Our product range includes a wide range of non woven fiberglass felt, non woven nomex felt, polyester filter felt, non woven filter felt and non woven pps felt.
Nonwoven fabric is a fabric-like material made from long fibers, bonded together by chemical, mechanical, heat or solvent treatment. The term is used in the textile manufacturing industry to denote fabrics, such as felt, which are neither woven nor knitted.
We are engaged in offering our clients a broad range of Non Woven Nomex Felt. The offered product is extensively used for different filtration purposes in various industries. They are available in different sizes and specifications to meet the variegated requirements of our clients. They are made using supreme quality raw component using advanced technology to meet the latest industrial standards. Furthermore, we provide this product at market leading price.
We Used Polyester , PP , PPS , Nomex , PFTE , GLASS FIBER nonwoven fabrics.
We manufacture Non-woven Needle Punched Felt and Fabrics made of virgin polyester, viscose, Poly Propelyne and other fibers. Also available in any desired blend. Our Soft Needle Punch Felt is available in different finishing and coatings.
Our valued clients can avail Non-Woven Filter Felt from our impressive collection of filter media cloth. It is made by using different materials such as polyester, polyester teflon laminated and acrylic homo-polymer polypropylene. These are subjected to a range of quality parameters in adherence to industry norms. Our clients can avail these at very reasonable prices.
We offer a range of Non Woven PPS Felt. Our offered range is precisely manufactured by our skilled team of workers using best quality fiber and cutting edge techniques. This product is used in saddlery blankets, auto carpets, and horse riding saddlery equipment's. Our product is checked on quality parameters for assuring the quality before the dispatch.


CONGRATULATIONS to our Winner of Veet's Sensitive Precision Expert Styler – sallyannjohnston.
Thank you to all who entered and keep following esprit for our next 30th Anniversary Competition. Have a great week!


Maybe I should'a named it "Stencil Graffiti". Heavily inspired by graffiti in northern UK, Noscope October is a look back at the events that have unfolded these last few months. Obviously it is my personal opinion that the iraqi war was a tremendous miscalculation. Having been email flamed by dozens of angry individuals for my anti-war opinions, this is also a message to them. For fucks sake, don't you try and shut me up!
Sometimes I feel like i'm taking crazy pills. How could anyone support a Bush that's just renamed Nuclear Weapons to "Bunker Busters"?
Having gotten rid of Saddam may be swell, but it doesn't change the point that the entire basis of the war, namely WMD, is non-existant.


text:
Conservative Judaism and Halakhah (Jewish Law)
1. The Role of Women in Conservative Judaism
2. Driving on Shabbat
3. Use of Electricity on Shabbat
4. Yom Tov Sheni in Conservative Judaism
Annex 1 - "Tradition and change" is the Conservative movement's motto, balancing adherence to Jewish law with a willingness to introduce major innovations.
Annex 2 - NOTES ON A TALK BY JOEL ROTH
"OF ALL THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF Conservative Judaism, its work in modifying the halachah has been the most significant. Conservative Judaism has molded American Judaism to give it a unique character and has spread its minhag and influence into a thousand synagogues and millions of homes. The rigid fences which separated men and women in the synagogue have been broken down, the liturgy has been modernized, the prohibition of electricity on the Sabbath has been questioned, kohanim have been allowed to marry divorcees and proselytes, and the scandal of a recalcitrant husband refusing a get for his wife has been solved. No other group has worked so creatively in the field of halachah as the Conservative movement.... For the Conservative Jew, the nature of halachah is that it is a dynamic concept, changing and changeable with each generation. Based on a doctrine of Revelation which makes Scripture not the ipsimma verba of God but the human recordings of Israel's experience of God's teaching, it has presented an approach to halachah which called for the never ending process of adaptation. The authority for change is then found in the nature of the law and in the history of the tradition which did not permit the law to become ossified but subjected it to continuous reinterpretation to keep it a dynamic force in the ever changing conditions of life. Once we accept the concept of a dynamic law it must follow that its interpretation is demanded of the accepted scholars of every age.
"Another problem which the Conservative scholar has to face is the question "By what method?" The traditionalist argues that only the old methods of rabbinic exegesis are valid. The modernist will claim that the old talmudic rules of exegesis might not be sufficient to effect the changes or encourage the development that we need.... To the credit of Conservative teaching, we have reemphasized ... the guide line of ethics. ...A law which is not ethical cannot be the law of God or the law of Judaism. Siegel... argues that the ethical values of our tradition should have the power to define the particulars of Jewish law. If any law in our tradition does not fulfill our ethical values then the law should be abolished or revised. ... Opponents of the ethical emphasis will argue that it is only the halachah which is final and absolute. Ethics can sometimes be situational and values only temporary. And we then face the question who decides what is ethical? The answer comes back to Schechter's concept of Catholic Israel-the collective conscience of an educated community of Jews. For sure, even then there can be a conflict of views, which on that account legitimizes the existence of religious pluralism...."
From review of Conservative Judaism And Jewish Law, edited by Seymour Siegel; the Rabbinical Assembly, 1977, distributed by KTAV, New York. in Conservative Judaism Fall 1978, Volume XXXII, Number 1
"Halakhah -- Jewish law -- plays a significant role in the ideology and principles of the Conservative Movement. Congregations root themselves in halakhah….
We have succeeded in creating an evolving body of halakhah. It reflects the best of a process that synthesizes Jewish sources and values, applying them to conditions in our society. We need not apologize for our approach to halakhah; for it emulates with integrity the practice of our ancestors. "Tradition and Change," however, is based not only on the principle of an evolving halakhah, but on one that is binding as well. Although we have created a halakhah that evolves, we have not yet succeeded in creating commitment to it. In the life of most Conservative Jews, halakhah does not represent "obligation."
The sad truth is that halakhah -- which is a foundation block of our ideology -- is irrelevant to most Conservative Jews. It's not that they reject halakhah, which would imply that they think about it. Too few feel it relevant enough to consider for their lives. We do not require surveys or population studies to tell us what we already know. There is a gap, a chasm, between what we say and what most people do."
From Halakhah: Evolving and Binding by Rabbi Jerome M Epstein Executive Vice-President, The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism delivered at the United Synagogue Biennial Convention, October 26-30, 2003, Dallas, Texas
The central halakhic authority of the movement is the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS), which was founded by the Rabbinical Assembly (RA) in the 1920s. It is composed of 25 rabbis, who are voting members, and five laypeople, who do not vote, but participate fully in deliberations. When any six (or more) members vote in favor of a position, that position becomes an official position of the committee. Any particular issue can generate from one to four official positions. (When multiple positions are validated, they usually have much common ground.)
When more than one position is validated, each congregational rabbi functions as the mara de-atra (communal halakhic authority), adopting for their congregation the position he or she considers most compelling. In the overwhelming majority of cases, Conservative rabbis choose among the law committee's validated positions. On rare occasions, an individual rabbi may ignore the committee and act in accordance with his or her own convictions regarding what is halakhically correct.
CJLS decisions are not enforceable on rabbis, except regarding standards. A standard requires an 80% vote of the full membership of the CJLS and a majority vote by the plenum of the Rabbinical Assembly. Willful violations have led to resignations or expulsions from membership of the Rabbinical Assembly (RA). At present, there are four standards:
1) A complete prohibition on rabbis and cantors to officiate in any way at intermarriages.
2) A complete prohibition against officiating at the remarriage of a Jew whose previous marriage has not been halakhically terminated, whether by a halakhic divorce [get], hafka'at Kiddushin [annulment of the marriage], or death.
3) A complete prohibition against taking any action that would intimate that native Jewishness can be confirmed in any way but matrilineal descent.
4) A complete prohibition against supervising a conversion to Judaism that does not include circumcision for males, and immersion in a Mikvah for both males and females.
http://www.msnusers.com/judaismfaqs/halakhaandthecommiteeonjewishlawandstandardscjls.msnw
Four Lieniencies of Conservative Halakhah compared to Orthodox
In each of these cases Conservative rabbis can choose between interpretations of halakhah as severe as Orthodox practice and the lenient positions outlined below without violating the conservative interpretations of halakhah.
The past 30 years have seen a revolution in how Conservative Judaism views women. Conservative Judaism believes in the equality of men and women, and, where necessary, has produced responsa and innovative rituals to address religious needs in this area. The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) of the Rabbinical Assembly has approved a number of responsa on this topic. Responsa have been accepted that justify women's active participation in synagogue life:
Publicly reading the Torah (ba'al kriah)
Being part of the minyan (See http://www.masorti.org.il/mason/have/responsa/women_minyan.html)
Being called for an aliyah to read the Torah (See http://www.masorti.org.il/mason/have/responsa/women_aliyot.html)
Serving as a Cantor (shalich tzibbur) (See http://www.masorti.org.il/mason/have/responsa/women_minyan.html)
Serving as rabbi and halakhic decisor (posek) (See http://www.masorti.org.il/mason/have/responsa/women_poskot.html)
Wearing a tallit and tefillin
A rabbi may or may not decide to adopt particular rulings for the congregation; thus, some Conservative congregations will be more or less egalitarian than others. However, there are other areas where legal differences remain between men and women, including:
Matrilineal descent. The child of a Jewish mother is born Jewish; the child of a Jewish father is born Jewish if and only if the mother is Jewish.
Serving as witnesses. Women do not usually serve as legal witnesses in those cases where Jewish law requires two witnesses. One opinion of the CJLS affirms that women may serve as witnesses. However, most Conservative rabbis currently affirm this only as a theoretical option, because of concern for Jewish unity. A change could result in many Orthodox Jews refusing to recognize the legitimacy of many marriages and divorces. A current Conservative solution is in the area of weddings: A new custom is to use Ketubot (wedding document) with spaces for four witnesses to sign; two men, and two women.
Pidyon Habat, the ceremony based on the Biblical redemption of a newborn son. Conservative Judaism prohibits performing Pidyon Ha-Bat on a newborn daughter. Pidyon Ha-Bat is a newly proposed ceremony that would mark the redemption of a newborn daughter; the CJLS has stated that this particular ceremony should not be performed. Other ceremonies, such as a Simchat Bat (Welcoming a newborn daughter), should instead be used to mark the special status of a new born daughter. [CJLS teshuvah by Rabbi Gerald C. Skolnik, 1993]
See the full coverage to issue of the role of women in From Conservative Judaism: The New Century by NEIL GILLMAN, Behrman House, Inc., 1993 and Custom Drives Jewish Law on Women by Elliot N. Dorff
Jews that closely follow traditional practice don't do a whole category of activities, known in Hebrew as Melacha, on Shabbat. Melacha is usually badly translated as "work"; but it is better to use the Hebrew word, because the English word carries connotations of hard labor and other concepts that are inappropriate. Technically, there are 39 supercategories of melacha. They are derived from the classes of activities performed during the construction of the Mishkan (Tabernacle) in the desert, following the exodus from Egypt.
One of the prohibited forms of melacha is lighting a fire. So Jews that closely follow traditional practice do not light fires on the Sabbath. (In fact it is traditional to light candles just before the Sabbath comes in as the last act of melacha done before the Sabbath descends). Now, when you drive a car, and you put your foot on the ignition, you produce a spark of fire. Thus, such Jews also do not use motor vehicles on the Sabbath, for it violates the prohibition against lighting fire on Shabbat.
In the area of driving on Shabbat, the actual stance of the Conservative movement is stated in "Travel on the Sabbath: A statement unanimously adopted by the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards" which was affirmed unanimously on 2/17/60. This statement indicates that "the Sabbath cannot function as the great day of the Lord unless we consciously "make a fence around it". The most important of the fences we must make to safeguard the Sabbath as an oasis of peace and of holiness is the avoidance of travel."
However, Conservative Judaism exempts a specific type of travel from the above limitation: travel to a synagogue for attendance at worship.
This exemption was granted based both on the needs of modern conditions, were people live in widely scattered areas, as well as a view that it was an emergency measure which the individual might make when in his conscience he or she knows that no alternative exists, stressing the values that would be lost by travel even in such instance. Note that both opinions limit this exemption to the need of reaching the synagogue for attendance at worship. Still prohibited is travel for other ends, such as travel for social purposes, or travel to the synagogue for purposes other than to worship (for example, in order to attend a Bar Mitzvah ceremony or reception, for the motivation here is not the service of G-d but the honor of man).
Source http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/04-Observance/section-37.html
Also http://www.schechter.edu/askrabbi/driving_shabbat.htm
Within the Conservative Movement, there is a halakhic dispute re. whether electricity is halakhically "fire". Some in Conservative Judaism hold that electricity is not a form of fire, nor does the use of electricity inherently violate any other Shabbat prohibitions. Thus, it is an acceptable opinion within the Conservative movement for electric lights, telephones and other electrical appliances to be used on Shabbat. Note that other prohibitions, such as the prohibition of cooking, remain. Others in the movement follow the traditional practices seen in Orthodoxy, and restrict the use of electricity in addition to other prohibitions.
Source http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/04-Observance/section-37.html "Use of Electricity
"It appears to me that the most prevalent Conservative view is that electricity is not fire. There is a majority opinion of the Law Committee to this effect (Klein, page 87). Although there is a wide range of Conservative thought and practice concerning use of electricity, one prevalent view is that the use of electricity is allowed for any permitted activity (such as turning on lights for reading) and forbidden for any prohibited activity (such as cooking; see the 39 categories of prohibited activities below and in an attachment at the end of this Guide). This position holds that: using the telephone is acceptable (if done without money), turning on a radio, CD player or television is acceptable, turning on lights is acceptable, heating already prepared (i.e., cooked) solid food in a microwave is acceptable since it is not cooking (nor does it involve heating metal until it is ), broiling a raw chicken in an electric rotisserie is not acceptable, and using an electric lawnmower is not acceptable. In addition, the uses of electricity should be in the spirit of Shabbat so, for example, not all (and perhaps few) television programs would be appropriate on Shabbat. Some people who use electricity draw the line at the use of electric motors, or at heating metal until it is . Others do not turn on electric or electronic devices on Shabbat for the sake of the spirit of the day, or for other reasons (and they typically rely on timers to turn lights on and off)."
Source DRAFT Guide to Practical Halacha and Home Ritual For Conservative Jews By Yehuda Wiesen http://www.personnelselection.com/halacha.pdf
From the 1930s to the 1960s, Yom Tov Sheni was a topic of periodic discussion by the Conservative movement's law committee. A teshuva by Rabbi Aaron Blumenthal was unanimously accepted by the law committee in 1963. After giving a review of the legal sources and responsa literature, the teshuva affirmed that it is possible to change the law in this regard, yet such a change is not obligatory or recommended. The conclusion reasoned that:
"The suggestion to eliminate Yom Tov Sheni comes from two sources: 1. From observant Jews for whom the new status of the T'futzah and a yearning to invest Israel with greater spiritual influence are sufficient warrant for the change. Their religious life would not suffer. The elimination of unnecessary hardships and superfluous duplication would enhance the observance of festivals in their homes. Yielding to their suggestion would stem from factors of strength in Judaism. 2. From non-observant Jews, or at best from would-he observant Jews, for whom the lesser demands of Judaism might contribute to a wider observance of the holidays...One hesitates to predict the measure of success that would follow from yielding to their suggestions, but it would derive from factors of weakness in contemporary Jewish life. The simple truth of the matter is that Jewish observance in America is not strong enough in depth to justify the assumption that elimination of the second day will enhance our religious life. On the other hand, its elimination will deny us the utilization of the second day for religious inspiration..." In closing, this teshuva concluded that it would be premature to make any official changes in Yom Tov Sheni, and that retaining it would allow for more advantages than disadvantages."
Four years later the Rabbinical Assembly instructed the law committee to re-open the issue. After much debate, three teshuvot were eventually accepted by the law committee. All of these teshuvot are considered as valid positions within normative halakha. Following the traditional Jewish stance, the Conservative movement holds that a congregation must follow the ruling of its rabbi, who as mara d'atra [local halakhic authority] has the sole responsibility and authority in making such a p'sak [ruling/decision].
Overwhelmingly, most American Conservative synagogues, and all Masorti synagogues in England, have retained observance of Yom Tov Shenei. It is, of course, not observed in Masorti synagogues in Israel.
The three teshuvot are summarized below.
(1) Rabbis Philip Sigal and Abraham J. Ehrlich conclude that observance of Yom Tov Sheni is a minhag which can be decided by the local rabbi. "While we reaffirm the inherent value of Yom Tov Sheni, in order to provide relief to those who no longer find in it spiritual enrichment, and to those who for socio-economic reasons find it is not feasible to observe the second day of yom tov, we declare that yom tov sheni is not a hok, a permanent enactment, but a minhag, a custom Congregations need not feel compelled to observe other than the second day of Rosh Ha-Shanah. On the other hand, those who still desire to maintain it as an expression of personal piety, as a chumrah, might do so, vetavo aleihem berakhah, may God bless them."
(2) Rabbi Wilfred Shuchat offered a dissenting view in which he ruled that (a) the observance of Yom Tov Sheni must be seen as a takkanah, and not a minhag, (b) it is important in general to build a "fence around the Torah", (c) In a reference to the Reform movement, he writes that "If, however, the second day of Yom Tov were eliminated, it would not be long before the first day would fall into desuetude. We have living proof of this contention. A large and influential religious movement in Judaism has eliminated the second day of Yom Tov for the past two generations. De facto, if not de jure, the first day no longer exists as a significant factor in that movement" In conclusion, he urges the retention of the observance of Yom Tov Sheni for a host of practical matters.
Interestingly, Rabbi Shuchat concludes by saying that he would agree to the elimination of Yom Tov Sheni if it were to come from a recognized halakhic body in the land of Israel. This echoes the view of some Modern Orthodox rabbis, who are willing in theory to make many of the same changes made by Conservative Jews, but who state that they are unwilling to make such rulings on their own authority; rather, they are waiting for a more recognized body in Israel to someday appear.
(3) Rabbi Aaron Blumenthal writes "that it would be tragic for us to initiate a program which must lead inevitably to the abandonment of the second day of the festivals. Let those who have no alternative... not feel that they are in violation of halakhah if they observe only one day. But we cannot condone the initiation of discussions about the second day in those Congregations which do have regular and meaningful services on it."
All of the Conservative teshuvot can be found in "Proceedings of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Conservative Movement 1927-1970", volume III, pages 1228-1272. This is part of a three volume set that is available from the United Synagogue Book Service.
Source - http://groups.msn.com/judaismfaqs/yomtovshenitheseconddayoffestivalsinthediaspora.msnw)
"Tradition and change" is the Conservative movement's motto, balancing adherence to Jewish law with a willingness to introduce major innovations.
This article is excerpted from a statement of principles issued in 1988 by the major institutions of the North American arm of the Conservative movement (known outside North America as the Masorti ["traditional"] movement). Reprinted with permission from Emet Ve-emunah: Statement of Principles of Conservative Judaism, published by the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, the Rabbinical Assembly, United Synagogue of America (now called United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism), Women's League for Conservative Judaism, and Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs.
The sanctity and authority of halakhah attaches to the body of the law, not to each law separately, for throughout Jewish history halakhah has been subject to change. Reverence for the tradition and concern for its continuity prevented rash revision of the law, but Jewish practice was modified from time to time. Most often, new interpretation or application of existing precedents produced the needed development, but sometimes new ordinances were necessary. Sometimes, as in the education of girls and the creation of the Simhat Torah festival, the changes occurred first in the conduct of the rabbis or the people and only then were confirmed in law.
Tradition and Development in Halakhah
The rabbis of the Mishnah, the Talmud, and midrash recognized that changes had occurred and that they themselves were instituting them. They took pains to justify the legitimacy of rabbis in each generation applying the law in new ways to meet the demands of the time. They pointed out that the Torah itself requires such judicial activity, a mandate which they interpreted broadly to include, at times, even outright revisions of the law.
Each individual cannot be empowered to make changes in the law, for that would undermine its authority and coherence; only the rabbinic leaders of the community, because of their knowledge of the content aims, and methods of halakhah, are authorized by Jewish tradition to make the necessary changes, although they must keep the customs and needs of the community in mind as they deliberate.
We in the Conservative community are committed to carrying on the rabbinic tradition of preserving and enhancing halakhah by making appropriate changes in it through rabbinic decision. This flows from our conviction thathalakhahis indispensable for each age. As in the past, the nature and number of adjustments of the law will vary with the degree of change in the environment in which Jews live.
The rapid technological and social change of our time, as well as new ethical insights and goals, have required new interpretations and applications of halakhah to keep it vital for our lives; more adjustments will undoubtedly be necessary in the future. These include additions to the received tradition to deal with new circumstances and, in some cases, modifications of the corpus of halakhah.
Regulating Change
While change is both a traditional and a necessary part of halakhah, we, like our ancestors, are not committed to change for its own sake. Hence, the thrust of the Jewish tradition and the Conservative community is to maintain the law and practices of the past as much as possible, and the burden of proof is on the one who wants to alter them.
Halakhah has responded and must continue to respond to changing conditions, sometimes through alteration of the law and sometimes by standing firm against passing fads and skewed values. Moreover, the necessity for change does not justify any particular proposal for revision. Each suggestion cannot be treated mechanically but must rather be judged in its own terms, a process which requires thorough knowledge of both halakhah and the contemporary scene as well as carefully honed skills of judgment.
Following the example of our rabbinic predecessors over the ages, however, we consider instituting changes for a variety of reasons. Occasionally the integrity of the law must be maintained by adjusting it to conform to contemporary practice among observant Jews. Every legal system from time to time must adjust what is on the books to be in line with actual practice if the law is to be taken seriously as a guide to conduct. New technological, social, economic, or political realities sometimes require legal action.
Some changes in law are designed to improve the material conditions of the Jewish people or society at large. The goal of others is to foster better relations among Jews or between Jews and the larger community. In some cases, changes are necessary to prevent or remove injustice, while in others they constitute a positive program to enhance the quality of Jewish life by elevating its moral standards or deepening its piety.
When Normal Halakhic Development is Insufficient
We affirm that the halakhic process has striven to embody the highest moral principles. Where changing conditions produce what seem to be immoral consequences and human anguish, varying approaches exist within our community to rectify the situation. Where it is deemed possible and desirable to solve the problem through the existing halakhic norms, we prefer to use them.
If not, some within the Conservative community are prepared to amend the existing law by means of a formal procedure of legislation (takkanah). Some are willing to make a change only when they find it justified by sources in the halakhi erature. All of us, however, are committed to the indispensability of halakhah for authentic Jewish living.
Our dedication to halakhah flows from our deep awareness of the divine element and the positive values inherent in it. Every effort is made to conserve and enhance it. When changes are necessary, they are made with the express goal of insuring that halakhah remains an effective, viable, and moral guide for our lives.
Source http://www.myjewishlearning.com/daily_life/About_Jewish_Daily_Life/TO_Halakhah/Attitudes_to_Halakhah/Conservative_Halakhah.htm
Are women required to recite the amidah three times a day? Are they required to recite musaf and neilah? Is it permissible to count them in the minyan for barekhu, kaddish, and the repetition of the amidah? May they serve as cantor for shaharit, minhah, ma'ariv, musaf, and neilah?
Responsum:
According to the Mishnah (Berakhot 3:3), women are required to recite the tefilah, and tefilah in the Mishnah does not mean "prayer" but rather the amidah or the eighteen benedictions. The discussion of this Mishnah in the Bavli (20b) had been preserved in three different versions and the Rishonim ruled according to the text which they had in front of them. The Rif, Maimonides and others ruled that tefilah was originally a positive commandment for men and women without a fixed time or text; when Ezra and his court enacted fixed times and texts, men and women were obligated equally. Halakhot Gedolot, Rashi and Ramban ruled that tefilah was originally a rabbinic enactment, which applied equally to men and women since tefilah involves asking God for mercy. In any case, according to the Mishnah, the Bavli in all of its versions and the Rishonim cited in the responsum, women are required to recite the amidah three times a day exactly like men. Furthermore, there are many testimonies from the Talmudic period until the eighteenth century which prove that women actually prayed every day and even three times a day at home or in the synagogue just like men.
There is a disagreement among the Aharonim as to whether women are required to recite musaf, but the proofs adduced by both sides are not very convincing. In such a case, it is preferable to rely on the early sources and, according to the plain meaning of the Mishnah and the Rambam, women are required to recite musaf and neilah just as they are required to recite shaharit, minhah and ma'ariv.
Barekhu, kaddish and the loud repetition of the amidah are usually called devarim shebikedushah and many authorities forbid women from being counted in the minyan for these prayers. However, this prohibition is nowhere mentioned in the Talmud or in the Rambam. On the contrary, a careful reading of the Talmud and the Rambam reveals that it is permissible to count women in the minyan for these prayers. The Talmud derives the need for a minyan for certain ceremonies from a derashah found in Megilah 23b (= Berakhot 21b). The very same derashah appears word for word in Sanhedrin 74b as an asmakhta for sanctifying God's name in the presence of a minyan. The latter passage in the Talmud assumes that Esther and other women are required to sanctify God's name in the presence of ten Jews, and this was codified by the major codes of Jewish law. Furthermore, a number of authorities ruled that women may even be counted in the minyan required for the sanctification of God's name. It is clear from the identical derashot adduced in these two passages that devarim shebikedushah and kiddush hashem are two sides of the same coin, since they both stem from the desire to sanctify God's name in public. Therefore, if it is permissible to count women in the minyan for kiddush hashem, they can be counted in the minyan for barekhu, kaddish and kedushah as well.
Finally, there is a basic principle that whoever is obligated to do something, may fulfill the obligation of the congregation (Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 3:8). We have proved above that women are required to recite the amidah in every prayer service and that they are required to sanctify God's name in public. As a result, it is permissible for them to act as cantor for all of the parts of the service under discussion.
Rabbi David Golinkin
In favor: Rabbi Michael Graetz
Rabbi Gilah Dror
Rabbi David Frankel
Rabbi David Lazar
Rabbi Simchah Roth
Opposed: Rabbi Yisrael Warman
Source http://www.responsafortoday.com/engsums/6_5.htm
NOTES ON A TALK BY JOEL ROTH
Rabbi Joel Roth spoke at Agudath Israel April 30-May 2, 2004. Rabbi Roth is a prominent halakhic decisor (posek) for the Conservative Movement. He is a member of the assembly's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) which deals with questions of Jewish law and tradition, and serves as a professor of Talmud at the Jewish Theological Seminary.
He is the author of "The Halakhic Process" and wrote the responsa, accepted by JTS, that allowed women to become ordained as rabbis.
Lecture I – Conservative Judaism and Jewish Law
Rabbi Roth made 4 points:
1. The mitzvahs are compulsory on Jews. If a Jew does not keep a relevant mitzvah he has sinned i.e. rebelled against the will of the Creator).
Rabbi Roth ignored the theological underpinnings of halakhah (see Conservative Theology) which are seen to make the halakhah obligatory. In doing that he highly emphasized the similarity of Conservative and Orthodox Judaism (the halakhah is obligatory on Jews and the theoretical considerations and processes of halakhic change) while ignoring Conservatism's similarities to Reform "under the hood" ((1) their rejection of "verbal revelation" i.e. that the Written Torah and the bases of the Oral Torah were given verbatim to Moses by God on Sinai; (2) their willingness to accept the results of modern historic scholarship supporting the conclusion that the Torah is a human artifact however those humans might have been inspired by God; (3) and, their desire to engage with modern life accepting the changes that this implies)
2. Only trained rabbinical scholars are qualified to give an opinion on halakhah. Conservative rabbis are "trained GPs" equipped to give authoritative replies on most halakhic issues and knowing enough to pass on other matters to the relevant rabbinic specialists.
3, There has always been a pluralism within halakhic Judaism (see Dorff's explication and that of Gillman). This usually occurs either due to differences in regional custom (e.g. Sephardic vs. Ashkenazi) or, more fundamentally, when an issue is still under dispute. Normally, in time, the halakhah becomes settled on one of the options. Prior to this resolution, all the halakhic options are valid with Jews normally following the opinion of a single authority on all issues – i.e. you don't have a right to accept an opinion of one authority in one disputed issue and that of another authority in another disputed issue.
Rabbi Roth's argument was virtually identical to that recently stated by Rabbi Jerome M Epstein
"For the Conservative Jew, the goal is to make it (halakhah) both evolving and binding. That is tradition and change. I have intentionally avoided reference to "the" halakhah, a phrase fundamentalists use. There is not one body of Jewish law to which everyone agrees. That our halakhah differs from the halakhah of others follows the rich precedent of our ancestors who differed -- sometimes widely-- in interpretation of halakhah and daily practices. Nevertheless, halakhah structured their daily behavior and determined how they lived. In discussing whether the School of Hillel or the School of Shammai was truly right in their debates, the Talmud teaches that "Both are the words of the Living God," even though the halakhah usually follows the teachings of the School of Hillel. I am struck by the fact that the rabbis of the Talmud believed that the reading of the Torah could yield differing and inconsistent rulings and acknowledged the existence of divergent understandings of texts.
There was individuality of thought and belief. But, in the end, the conmmnity determined one position as binding. As Conservative Jews, we have a right to choose an interpretation of halakhah based on personal understanding of the texts, but ultimately, it is critical that we obligate ourselves to live by that chosen interpretation. To quote the late legal scholar Robert Cover, "One might have independent and divergent understandings of the obligations imposed by God through his chosen people, but one could not have a world view which denied the obligation."
4. Judaism of the Future does not Need to Look Like our Grandfather's Judaism i.e. change is possible and necessary within the Halakhic system but it must occur in halakhically legitimately ways (see the annex for details).
Lecture II – Processes for Change Within Halakhah
In fact he did not really speak to this topic (see Dorff's explication and A TREE OF LIFE: Diversity, Flexibility, and Creativity in Jewish Law by LOUIS JACOBS). . Rather, he described a single process i.e. a posek has a right to change an accepted rabbinic halakhah when all the following are true:
there is a pressing need for change;
the posek is reasonably sure that he know the original reason for the halakhah and considers that it is no longer valid or important; and,
there are no important additional reasons for maintaining the status quo.
Lecture III – Women and Jewish Law
He pointed out that there are two major issues –
a. Aliyot and Reading the Torah – the reasons for excluding women from this in traditional halakhah is kvod hatzibur i.e. selecting a woman implies that there are no men able to undertake the task (see http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_c/bl_women_minyan.htm ). This is a minor halakhic issue.
b. Counting a Woman in the Minyan and Women as Hazzan
This is a more difficult halakhic question. Halakhically, women can only be counted in the minyan or serve as a hazzan if they have the same level of obligation for praying the statutory prayers. Traditionally, the statutory prayers have been counted as one of the "time dependant mitzvahs" from which women are exempt.
Rabbis of the Conservative Movement could issue a takkana declaring all Jewish women to henceforth have the same prayer obligations as men. Rabbi Roth would not approve of this because he considers that most Conservative women would not perform the mitzvah and hence would be sinners i.e. a whole new class of sinners would be created.
The following are acceptable Conservative positions i.e. rabbis can follow any of them:
1. To follow historic minority opinions of important rabbis who held that women are in fact obligated to say the statutory prayers so they can therefore be counted in the minyan and serve as a hazzan. Rabbi Roth does not approve of this approach as it flies in the face of 1,500 years of Jewish practice;
2. An individual woman can declare herself obligated to say the statutory prayers for life and thereby become halakhically obligated. There are two views of the result:
some hold that she thereby becomes obligated at the same level as men and can therefore be counted in the minyan and serve as a hazzan;
others hold that she thereby does becomes obligated, but at a lesser level than men as a voluntary obligation is not as weighty as non-voluntary halakhic obligation. Thus, women undertaking this obligation still cannot be counted in the minyan or serve as a hazzan.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl