source lake uphill dog park trail

I understand the arrangement between Alpental and the usfs. Of course the ski area has and should have control over all operations including closing and controlling ski runs when necessary.

But I don't think it's naive to feel that it would be unfair to ban uphill travel, if it's conducted in a safe and reasonable manner (which may not have been the case in the matter at hand), because uphill skiers are not revenue customers. It is, after all, still public land.

That said, I personally dont see what the interest is in skinning up a ski resort unless it's before or after the resort is open for the season.

I don't get the level of teeth gnashing on this subject. 

A good percentage of the angst seems to be about the inconvenience of downward bound skiers having to limit speed in order to be in sufficient control to avoid a collision with an ascending skier (and perhaps their dog)

The problem I have with that complaint is that another downward bound skier could have stopped or fallen at any point on the trail and downward bound skiers have a responsibility to avoid them (both by the  The Skier Responsibility Code and Washington State Law )

Because of the inherent risks in the sport of skiing all persons using the ski hill shall exercise reasonable care for their own safety. However, the primary duty shall be on the person skiing downhill to avoid any collision with any person or object below him or her.

Thing is, there is a route that avoids the downhill skier traffic.

Thing is, there is a route that avoids the downhill skier traffic.

Re-read what I said above -- especially the part about some other downhill skier might have fallen in downhill track and be blocking the trail.

Thing is, this is a ski area.
We pay for access to lifts and trails, that includes exit trails.
This has been going on far longer than peoples interest in using the back end of lot 4 as their touring access point.

Take a look at a map.
Consider the relatively small area that Alpental occupies.
Now look at all the terrain that can be accesses surrounding the pass and other areas East and or North of the crest...

To me, I am hearing "why so selfish?" about terrain around Alpental.
AFAIK, why is it that people can't leave the little bit that is Alpental alone for those who have paid for that service and go some place else where there wont be conflict?

The whole "this is public land and I should be able to do whatever I want" is an invalid, self entitled argument for special snowflakes.

www.summitatsnoqualmie.com/mountains/safety/bc-policy

The Alpental Back Bowls are outside of the developed portion of Alpental Ski Area. The Back Bowls lie within the Alpental Ski Area use permit, but have some additional rules of use and require a more self reliant mindset . The true backcountry lies outside of the ski area boundary and is not managed by the ski area. Hazards, both in the Back Bowls and in the backcountry; including large cliffs, obstacles, changing snow conditions and avalanche-prone slopes, are unmarked. The Alpental Back Bowls and the backcountry are not actively patrolled by the Alpental Ski Patrol.

www.fs.usda.gov/main/mbs/passes-permits/event-commercial

From my reading this I see that going up the Lot 4 lot is perfectly OK hiking and with a pup. However, forest rules would state that a dog SHOULD be on leash. I have a pup, and take her out off-lease in the national forest when touring, but I try to avoid popular area's like this. I do believe that Lot4 should NOT be used for touring from and should be considered as part of Summit's parking as that area is gated off after the resort is closed which leads me to believe that the area there is private. Perhaps a parking pass for ski pass holders would be in order to help with some of this?

Those are legit points, GravityMK, but I don't think anyone is making an "I can do whatever I want" argument.

IMHO since the land is publicly owned, as opposed to completely private, the ski company has a duty to allow uphill traffic in a safe and regulated manner. An approach that seems to be managed effectively at a multitude of ski areas across the country.

I'll also be the first to admit this is a completely theoretical argument for me. I don't ski at Alpental and if i did I'd buy a ticket!

Re-read what I said above -- especially the part about some other downhill skier might have fallen in downhill track and be blocking the trail.

OK, sure I can see why you would apply that to support your argument and view...
However, that was clearly written with "ski runs" in mind, not a ski out traverse trail that was created to provide a gravity fed return that is meant to bring "down hill skiers and snowboarders" back to the base.

The reality is, people are playing on parts of it with children on sleds, etc, hiking up against the flow with infants in backpacks etc. Why would you place either a skier or hiker in position that could ruin each others day not to mention life?

Those are legit points, GravityMK, but I don't think anyone is making an "I can do whatever I want" argument.

Not in so many words - however it has come up here and in other places and it's also sometimes a prevailing attitude of people that are walking up with little or no awareness. My response is also driven by personal experience with a problem (since the beginning of the season) that is getting worse. The last thing i want to see or hear about is people getting hurt (or worse) in a situation that could be avoided.

I park there occasionally to tour. I also have (and have had for a decade) a season's pass for the Summit, so I don't feel like I'm taking advantage of anyone by parking there or using the shuttle if I start at the Commonwealth TH and finish at Alpental.

What time is the first skier coming down the narrow part of the return track? Anything accessed from the lower gate would be on the wide, groomed track. It doesn't seem like there should be much of a conflict before about 10am. Can't we get our collective asses out of bed a little earlier for a tour and be to Source lake by 10? Who sleeps in on a ski day anyways?

Obviously that doesn't help the family/sledding situation, but where are those people supposed to go? Ski areas are the about the only free places to park up there and there's not much low hanging (and free) fruit for kids sledding.

Perhaps a parking pass for ski pass holders would be in order to help with some of this?

As much as I am loathe to admit it, i think this is the most logical path to help mitigate the rising conflict.  

In fact, if the summit was managed by its ownership directly i think you would have seen this happen already as it makes me wonder if Boyne's operating lease is set up to properly incentivize them to take such steps.

and before anyone gets their panties in a twist, i'm not advocating for excluding non lift riders from parking but rather charging a higher rate to account for the revenue lost when all lots are full and 15-20% of available spots are occupied by non patrons.

There really isn't anywhere to park at the pass to access the standard touring spots that isn't ski area parking - Commonwealth, Snoqualmie Mtn / Phantom, Source Lake, etc.

A parking pass that comes with your season pass or with a day ticket would be one way...
That seems like a band aid for a larger problem though, which is;

Where can people in the Puget Sound who aren't skiers or snowboarders go to have a Winter experience?
Current resources at the Pass are quickly overwhelmed and the residents are some times unfairly put upon.

JMO - The state and the Forest service needs to step up and develop/promote more areas on either side of the crest that will allow people to be able to visit and enjoy a winter environment in a way that isn't in conflict with others or in harms way (think Tinkham Road Exit sliding area for instance).

OK, sure I can see why you would apply that to support your argument and view...
However, that was clearly written with "ski runs" in mind, not a ski out traverse trail that was created to provide a gravity fed return that is meant to bring "down hill skiers and snowboarders" back to the base.

The reality is, people are playing on parts of it with children on sleds, etc, hiking up against the flow with infants in backpacks etc. Why would you place either a skier or hiker in position that could ruin each others day not to mention life?

The "return tracks" are every bit a "ski run" as anything else at Alpental -- just narrower. It seems that core issue is that you believe that you have the to ski these narrow "return tracks" at a speed where your ability to avoid a collision with others using the trail (whether they are heading up or down) is questionable.

So whom is the bigger jerk? -- the know nothing snowshoer with their kid in a backpack foolishly plodding up the "down track"-- or the totally rad downhill skier clocking along at 25mph that slams into them?

A parking pass that comes with your season pass or with a day ticket would be one way...

Oregon uses something like this -- *ALL* cars parked in lift ski area lots require a ODOT "sno-park" pass $25 annually, $9 for a three day pass, $4 for a day pass.

www.odot.state.or.us/forms/dmv/6642.pdf

Personally I think it is a good approach, but I suspect WA lift area operators would oppose a move to such a system vigorously.

I'm not sure it would do much to reduce the troubles with fools wandering up along the Alpental "return track" -- unless the DOL adds a "How drive, ski and walk on snow without being a jerk" learning requirement to purchase of such a pass.

The state and the Forest service needs to step up and develop/promote more areas on either side of the crest that will allow people to be able to visit and enjoy a winter environment in a way that isn't in conflict with others or in harms way (think Tinkham Road Exit sliding area for instance). 

Great idea but merely mentioning it on an internet forum won't get anything done. 

If pedestrians used the pedestrians route, there would be no problem.

The "return tracks" are every bit a "ski run" as anything else at Alpental -- just narrower.    It seems that core issue is that you believe that you have the  to ski these narrow "return tracks" at a speed where your ability to avoid a collision with others using the trail (whether they are heading up or down) is questionable.   

So whom is the bigger jerk? -- the know nothing snowshoer with their kid in a backpack foolishly plodding up the "down track"-- or the totally rad downhill skier clocking along at 25mph that slams into them?

You have missed the point. Not surprising.
When was the last time you were up to Alpental?
Have you been on the traverse out?
Have you experienced this first hand?

25 mph? [snort/shakes head]

Great idea but merely mentioning it on an internet forum won't get anything done. 

You're assuming this is the only place that is has been brought up then...

You have missed the point. Not surprising.

The point being that you feel that your lift skiing experience is being unfairly infringed upon by "plodders" that didn't follow the instructions on some sign.

I've heard a lot of gnashing of teeth by a lot of skiers about (snowshoers, booters, NOB skiers, etc) other people not following some "rules" about keeping the ski track over a lot of decades.   

These complaints have their foundation in the expectation that others should make an extra effort in so that the skier's has a better experience.

Given human nature -- I find it interesting that people keep hoping others will change.

I won't say the last time I skied out that way -- but rather the 1st -- that was in 1972.

was there a LoT4 dog park in 72'?

Interesting twist on The LoT4 dog park yesterday.
Instead of dogs n tourons, it was occupied by a troop of Girl Scouts.
They were very respectful and cleaned up after themselves!

Oregon uses something like this -- *ALL* cars parked in lift ski area lots require a ODOT "sno-park" pass $25 annually, $9 for a three day pass, $4 for a day pass.

I think only a few ski area lots are designated as sno-parks. Most you can park at without a sno-park pass.

I think only a few ski area lots are designated as sno-parks. Most you can park at without a sno-park pass.

Timberline, Ski Bowl, Mount Hood Meadows, Mt Ashland all require sno-parks. I think Mt Batchelor does not.

First of all, let me the refer to the law, which states that a downhill skier must avoid people below them!  There is no excuse for skiing past this fundamental point of control, on any slope or trail.  As far as I am concerned if you hit somebody who was down hill form you, you are "out of control" and at fault.  No questions about it!   You hit them you phucked up.

However, I think it is using an overly broad brush to paint a picture in which Skiers should have no attachment to the ski tracks they work hard to break and maintain in deep snow....     
 
Don't worry that the people who posthole the skin track are destroying a lot of hard work.  No problem that everyone who skis that trail will have to do a lot more hard work as a result.  After all skin tracks make it easier for the uneducated to wallow up the mountain.   Never mind that once post holed, the track is potentially degraded for weeks, for everyone who follows,  either climbing or descending.  I mean isn't it their right to do what ever they want?  Being educated and compassionate is so unamerikan.

Maybe those skin tracking whiners should just accept that ignorance is a basic human right?  If so... can they now take a dump in the track along with the dogs?  I mean who wants to go way off track to preform their basic peristaltic duty?  That is such a hassle!

It seems to me that a path to a better future would involve consideration for everybody's point of view.   Give the hikers an exclusive place to practice their postholing, dog parks for dog shit, and an outhouse for humans, weather they they think their shit stinks or not.

What happened to the sign that clearly stated that downhill skiers have the right of way?  I would chip in for a new one if cost is the issue.  The trail is fully within the ski area and not in anything goes everyone equal wilderness.

Not my point.... At all.

Clearly, you are attached to your limited understanding of the situation.
By your own admission you have no practical understanding of whats going on out there.
So, maybe try sticking to a subject you actually have some practical working knowledge with.
MmmmKay?

For everyone that keeps quoting the law.
How many of you take your kids to play in the snow in the middle of a ski run?
Show of hands?

PS. This isn't about telling people they can't so much as it is about helping those who don't know better to establish a level of awareness that would help them make better choices.

PS. PS. Signs are coming

The point being that you feel that your lift skiing experience is being unfairly infringed upon by "plodders" that didn't follow the instructions on some sign.

I won't say the last time I skied out that way -- but rather the 1st -- that was in 1972.

What happened to the sign that clearly stated that downhill skiers have the right of way?  I would chip in for a new one if cost is the issue.  The trail is fully within the ski area and not in anything goes everyone equal wilderness.

i have proof of that sign from it's original location
at the head of the source lake uphill dog park trail.

In the interest of education;... Maybe a new sign that renames the place "Dog Shit Wallows" could be helpful? 

Wow...this is getting deep!' No complaints thpugh..