New non-motorised snoparks

Sorry, but I completely disagree. I share the terrain with snowmobiles all the time. The two big problems are noise and exhaust. If it wasn't for that, I wouldn't mind them in the least. It also means that over the years, I simply avoid the snowmobile areas more and more. I'll give you three examples.

I skied the Mountain Loop the Thursday before last. As I had hoped, there were no snowmobiles. It was fantastic. I know this may not be your cup of tea because it is extremely flat, but for cross country skiing it was outstanding. The views are top notch, and the skiing was great. Even without my fastest skis, I was flying. We followed previously laid ski tracks at times, but we also followed snowmobile tracks as well. It was easier on the ski tracks, but the snowmobile tracks were fine.

The second example is Park Butte. I was lucky enough to ski it last Spring. Again, it was on a weekday. We didn't expect to see any snowmobiles, because the snow was below the specified height (at least we think it was). We had a great day, skiing an incredibly beautiful area. The tracks that had been laid previously by the snowmobiles were no problem. The only bad part of the day was when we encountered one snowmobiler. You would think it wouldn't matter, but it was really annoying. They we were, relaxing on top of Park Butte, enjoying one of the finest spots in the Cascades, but rather than enjoy the peaceful sounds of nature, we had to listen to the buzzing and growling of the snow machine.

The last example is Keechulus Ridge. Earlier this year, I went on a snowshoe trip with a couple of friends that aren't skiers. The snow was bad, so I didn't mind using the snowshoes. We encountered a couple of snowmobile riders on the way up, but this wasn't too bad. The exhaust hung in the air for a while, but there was a nice breeze to get rid of it (I've encountered much worse). We had a very nice trip, and enjoyed the great views of the Alpine Lakes Peaks from the top. The problem was, there were plenty of snowmobiles on the top. Despite my bad hearing, it was really annoying. My buddies (who hadn't done much winter outdoor traveling) thought it was terrible. They had a point. So, basically, despite the relatively short distance and the great views, we essentially crossed that one off of the list.

If all these places (and more) were non-snowmobile places on alternate days than I would definitely visit them more often. Of course, if the snowmobiles had exhaust systems that were advanced and had much better mufflers, I wouldn't mind them at all.

The second example is Park Butte. I was lucky enough to ski it last Spring. Again, it was on a weekday. We didn't expect to see any snowmobiles, because the snow was below the specified height (at least we think it was).

If your trip was indeed last Spring, snowmobiling didn't close until Summer (July 5th or 6th). The FS is up there regularly in the Spring/Summer and closes it once there is 2' near the TH.
FYI- this is the ONLY location in the area that snowmobilers can access the Alpine (terrain above treeline). ALL of the other Alpine terrain is available for your use.

Sorry, but I completely disagree. ...I know this may not be your cup of tea because it is extremely flat, but for cross country skiing it was outstanding.

Please note that I qualified my comment with "at least for skiers who tour in part for turns" - yes, if your game is snowshoeing or kick-and-gliding, you may even find those day-old snowmo tracks to be of great assistance. But if you were hoping to get some turns on that slope that they've fully tracked while highmarking, life is not as good. But as I noted, alternating periods that are longer than a day - even as short as a week - would often suffice to allow "tour for turns" types to find decent turns where snowmobilers had been. And yes, I've seen slopes I'd hoped to ski tracked by 'biles more than once, particularly in the period where folks were starting to buy the more powerful machines that were capable of accessing more terrain. I've sinced learned to modify my ski plans to avoid such areas, though each year I do see some snowmobilers learning to edge into areas such as suprisingly tight and steep trees that I'd thought would always be left for us. I don't have a strong stake in this whole issue, but I can assure you that the "every other day" notion would be next to useless for my purposes. Might as well let 'em keep it every day then, at least from my perspective. For the here-and-there days when I want to get with the dog for some kick-and-glide and don't want to stress over whether the dog gets hit, every-other-day would be helpful, sure.

If your trip was indeed last Spring, snowmobiling didn't close until Summer (July 5th or 6th). The FS is up there regularly in the Spring/Summer and closes it once there is 2' near the TH.
FYI- this is the ONLY location in the area that snowmobilers can access the Alpine (terrain above treeline). ALL of the other Alpine terrain is available for your use.

Right, I had my years wrong. It was mid June, 2010 (Spring). It did look like their was less then the two feet at the trailhead. But I'm not sure how they define it. Some spots had piles of snow, while other spots had bare ground (we carried our skis in spots).

Yes, ALL other Alpine terrain is available for my use, its just that most of it is difficult to get to. I can't think of too many spots that are Alpine (or even Subalpine) that are easy to get to. By easy, I mean stuff that I can ski with Nordic gear. Paradise, Sunrise (when the road is plowed), Artist Point, and that's about it. I'm sure there are more, but they probably take more driving or involve more risk and skill than I want to encounter.

Please note that I qualified my comment with "at least for skiers who tour in part for turns"

Well, if your main purpose is to find untracked slopes, then I see your point. But I mentioned two other trips that had plenty of possibilities for great turns. I remember the Park Butte area having plenty of terrain with virgin snow, despite the presence of snowmobiles. Yes, they "wrecked" some spots, but there were plenty of other spots that were untouched. I can't imagine anyone being on skis up there and being disappointed with the turns.

My overall point is that while there are plenty of folks who would prefer week (or month) switching back and forth, there are probably a huge number (my guess is a bigger number) who would be just as happy with alternating day by day. One advantage of a day by day switch is that it is easy to remember. For example, Jolly Mountain could be odd, Park Butte could be even, etc.

Perhaps an even better compromise would be alternating year by year. Allow snowmobiles in particular areas on odd or even years. That would be even easier to remember (a person wouldn't forget more than once a year) and solve the situation completely. That would work for me.

Probably academic as I don't expect anything along these lines to be implemented any time soon. But if it were, why not do it in a fashion that appealed to as wide a variety of non-motorized recreationalists as possible (i.e. alternate weeks/months/years not days)?

Probably academic as I don't expect anything along these lines to be implemented any time soon. But if it were, why not do it in a fashion that appealed to as wide a variety of non-motorized recreationalists as possible (i.e. alternate weeks/months/years not days)?

The only argument for days is that it is easier to remember (than switching weeks). It may be a weak argument, but that's all I can come up with. It is what is used to manage biking on the Middle Fork.

Switching years makes the most sense to me (just as easy to remember, and solves the problem you mention).

I'd like to see more access in the Mt Hood and Mt Adams areas.

Snowmo's have (re)discovered Bennett Pass this year. It's a really narrow trail for skiers, snowshoers, XC skiers, and dog to share with big fast machines. Plus the ski track gets wrecked. Some of us locals are disjointedly talking about requesting that this site be non-motorized.

Also, along hwy 35, there are frequently no safe pull–outs. Just having the snow plows provide access to some of the trail heads would be awesome. Several skiers have gotten $200 parking tickets this winter because they parked illegally in order to ski the BC. On the weekends, the designated snow parks have often been parked out and Pocket Creek snowpark has been closed this winter for highway construction.

Mt Adams Trout Lake area: Would LOVE it if the Forest Service would plow access further up the mountain for early season skiing or for poor snow years. Having the snow parks hovering around 3000 feet makes for a very short ski season and a lot of sticky snow. It seems like the snow parks should be located at 4000 feet minimum for good snow conditions this far south.

This is a good thread. It's reminding me to write letters and get friends to write letters. Thanks.

I will chime in here with Hurricane Ridge.  Partly in jest, but I like the thread's region-wide perspective.  More access is better for all winter recreationists.  And the fact is that for the region in general, suitable road access is scarce.

Compared to many or most of the other alternatives mentioned Hurricane is a turnkey operation.  All it needs is the political will to unlock the gate during the week.

A tram to HR was considered when they built the road, and still gets thrown around in discussion. They just spent $12m to repair the road in 2009, so a) roads aren't cheap either but b) I don't think it will happen anytime soon.

More access is better for all winter recreationists.  And the fact is that for the region in general, suitable road access is scarce.

Compared to many or most of the other alternatives mentioned Hurricane is a turnkey operation.  All it needs is the political will to unlock the gate during the week

...I don't think it will happen anytime soon.

Thanks for the smile, Stormking!  Good to see you still have a sense of humor after your battles with the bureaucracy.  I'm visualizing NPS snowparks at White River and the Mowich Road after that "will" is born, probably kicking and screaming about cost & safety. 

However, the trend at Mount Rainier for many years has been decreasing access.  Without opening the gate to the public, the Westside Road was plowed to Dry Creek recently, ruining the main XC option in the Park on the many days when Paradise is closed.

FWIW, my Paradise Road tweet log (PM for 12K copy) shows 37 closed days, 11 afternoon openings, 5 early closures, and two 'stealth openings' (when announced closed) since nightly locking of the Longmire gate began Nov. 7.

www.hyalite.org and www.mountcain.com are two examples of groups that have been able to keep pretty extensive road systems plowed for winter access.   

Hyalite has formed a 501c3 and cooperates with Galletin County and the USFS to plow the road into the Canyon 13.7 miles from 5,400 to 7,000 feet.  Cost is $30,000 per year.  Sounds like the 501c3 raises money, the county plows, the FS allows it, and they got some sort of federal recreation grant.  10,000 visitors per month according to their website, enjoying ice climbing, xc skiing on and off groomed track, backcountry, ice fishing, snowshoeing, and snomo.  Maybe Amar can chime in on how much snow they get, but I imagine its a fair bit up to that elevation.

Others could chime in more on Mt. Cain, but it sounds like they have a grader and a volunteer and when it snows he plows.  KISS principle in action, but of course they are Canadian.  They get more snow than anyone I'd imagine (266" on 3/23/12).

Hey Stormking, I dig your style and knowledge and effort.  Ping me along the way if I can be of any help.   

dg

TOO LONG TO READ: I've often thought that trams would be great in a variety of places; a rational, can-do society would have constructed some by now.  The U.S. is, perhaps, the most can't-do and it-will-cost-you-a-bundle society.  We need a Great Depression to recreate the CCCs.

But as Vogtski points out, access to public lands (not just NPs) is decreasing.  Lack of road, trail,  and campground maintenance and handovers to concessionaires is scandalous on the National Forests. Mt. Rainier once had a wonderful plan for increasing access, now totally defunct..  A couple of years ago, they suggested closing down Cougar Rock Campground, and maybe Longmire.  Sunshine Point campground is gone, as it the campground that used to be up the West-side Road. Other roads to the Park have been closed or are expected to be lost to floods and washouts.

It is interesting that an all-volunteer group (MTTA) provide access and "groomed" trails on industrial forest lands, but the Park can't even groom the Paradise Valley Road, mark a system of loop snowshoe trails, and, often, open the road to Paradise before noon.   It would be great if the Park would groom the W-side Rd, roads behind Longmire, Paradise Valley Road, and some of the Stevens Canyon Road, making them accessible for access to bc for the hardy and for plain old recreation by the average to aging snowhoers and XC skiers.

MRNP just had a meeting on new safety policies for visitor access--Park people, concessionaires, and a consultant--no user group or user representative was reported in the paper. 

So what is the problem?  It is multifaceted.  Budget, of course.  Will (or lack of recreational user appreciation) seems lacking.  Adversarialism in the Public--some want all wilderness with no access, some with little access; others want improved access to public lands in general; even repairing or relocating trails has  been contested in adminstrative and legal procedures.  Politics--federal budgets for recreation were deliberately cut and replaced to some extent by fees because anti-gov't proponents didn't believe recreation was important.  Economics--reduced timber harvests on NF and State lands reduced funds available for road maintenance and recreational access; tax revenues have fallen; wars and other expenditures have created a massive debt and deficit.

Yup, good summary Andrew. Some of your comments remind me that in some ways China has picked up the "can do, let's build new and maintain old infrastructure" mantle that our country had in spades when my parents were young. Now nothing is perfect and I fully realize that one of their "advantages" in this regard includes a government that is very able to impose its will on the public w/o a whole bunch of hearings and such, and that there are many concerns about environmental degradations as part of the overall picture. But still, when I travel over there, it's hard not to sigh and think about how things have changed here since mid-last-century. And boy, do they have the will. Local forums are full of threads about lack of road plowing, closed roads and fights about whether to re-open, closed roads that have just been given up on, etc. And I think that your economics point is one of the linchpins, though adversarialism and associated politics seem even more paramount (though for the several tramways we can all imagine, let's go back to economics  ).

Dang there are a couple of really cool ideas. Trams / Gondolas.. that crap sounds fricken awesome!!!

It almost seems like ALL users of the FS need to band together to make these things happen. A lot of times we seem to be too busy fighting each other for access to the same little pieces instead of working together to increase access to new pieces.

Do you guys agree with this?

Is there even a group around like this? A group that would be able to put pressure on the FS to increase access instead of what looks like constantly limiting it or trying to take from one group to the other?

I don't know.. I guess random thought of the day, but it seems like if we could all work together we could get some amazing things accomplished.

Just think if REI and the other big clothing producers, as well as wilderness groups and other land use groups pooled their money together to make these things happen.. Instead of spending it against each other..

Probably should stop at 2 cups of coffee as I am getting delirious...

Greenwater could become the WA equivalent of Chamonix!

Imagining Wapiti Woolies serving Illy espresso in tiny little cups and the biker bar across the street serving Pernod and croque monsieurs is giving me the gigglesnorts

Ruffryder if you haven't already you should really watch the National Park Series by PBS, which gives a really good picture of Gifford Pinchot and John Muir, two contemporaries who both loved nature, had vastly different ideas about how to honor that love, were very different people, met and talked several times, and most importantly probably shaped America's mental approach to wild lands more than any other two individuals in history.

Also, the both left their personal marks rather indelibly on Washington State.

If roads seem like a pipe-dream, what about a hut system? They seem like they'd be far cheaper to maintain.

I've spoken with a a few friends about a hut system for the N. Cascades and most seem interested in the idea. As far as I can tell, the fire lookouts are seeing increased winter traffic every year, yet they're I'll suited to handle much traffic at all, and poorly suited to house winter travelers. Just to our north, there's an great series of affordable winter huts, stocked with wood stoves, and located near tree and alpine skiing; how is it that the canadians have such an amazing hut system yet there are basically none in the cascades?

Does anyone know what type of permitting it would take to build a winter hut in the NF? the NP?

The hannegan pass parking (near mt baker) area always seemed like a decent spot to build one to me. easy, if long-ish approach, minimal slide path danger, easy to repair and maintain in the summer once the road opens.

The twins range? The south side of shuksan? the site of the old mountaineers cabin on the north side of baker? My awareness of the greater cascades is still growing, but it seems like there is huge potential just on my own home turf.

I would certainly like more huts. Roadside huts would be nice and definitely be OK from a Wilderness standpoint. The only possible problem I see is vandalism. Maybe something a mile or so away from the road would be ideal. Far enough away to discourage vandals, but still outside the Wilderness. Of course, areas inside protected areas (inside National Park gates, for example) would be OK, even next to the road. Maybe a hut at Sunrise would be OK. Ski the road and then ski from there (although I don't know what the avalanche danger is like on that road).

I would certainly like more huts. Roadside huts would be nice and definitely be OK from a Wilderness standpoint. The only possible problem I see is vandalism. Maybe something a mile or so away from the road would be ideal. Far enough away to discourage vandals, but still outside the Wilderness. Of course, areas inside protected areas (inside National Park gates, for example) would be OK, even next to the road. Maybe a hut at Sunrise would be OK. Ski the road and then ski from there (although I don't know what the avalanche danger is like on that road).

I was mentally picturing a hut that would be open once the road is closed, IE only open once the snow keeps the lazy vandal crowd away, and that could be boarded up and locked once the summer rolls around and people can drive right too it... not ideal, but it seems like a somewhat clever way to potentially end-run a lot of regulatory hurdles.

Well, I see advantages and disadvantages to putting huts at the trailhead. On the one hand, it is easy to repair and board up. But I think the danger of vandalism, even if boarded up, is real. The new bathrooms they put in are really solid, but I've already seen bullet holes in them. In the grand scheme of things maybe that doesn't matter (maybe a few bullet holes are the only damage that will occur) and maybe if they are up a trail a quarter mile it would still be a problem (who knows, it might be worse), but that would be my concern.

Part of the allure of a hut is the amazing natural setting they are in, almost exclusively at altitude. I don't see a hut deep in the trees at the end of a 3 mile road ski as having that appeal (especially when the same road can be snowmobiled).

And the vandalism/squatting would be bad in the summer.

Part of the allure of a hut is the amazing natural setting they are in, almost exclusively at altitude.  I don't see a hut deep in the trees at the end of a 3 mile road ski as having that appeal (especially when the same road can be snowmobiled).

And the vandalism/squatting would be bad in the summer.

In the case of that Hannegan pass rd that services both Ruth and Nooksack cirque, it's closed at the start of the road for most of the winter for use as a non-motorized snopark, but I get your point.

Perhaps further south in the passes, there would be great places for huts that are both in the alpine and close enough to a road, but I'm really struggling to think of anyplace near Baker that has that winning combination.

I have been following this thread. I really like the idea.

I saw this TGR article on something similar in BC:
www.tetongravity.com/blogs/A-Lift-Free-S...n-Evelyn-5938349.htm

It helped make it more real for me. One thing that is vague is whether they do any kind of avalanche control work. My preference would a minimalist avalanche control: limit blasting to times when there is a deep weak layer. Basically like what MBSA did on Shukshan Arm a few weeks ago.

It would be fun to think about putting together a proposal if there was a solid location.