Possible new pay parking policy at Mt. Baker

Randy, I think you are making a broad assumption here.
Just because it's public land does not mean that the public has unfettered access no mater what. Ski areas operate under a seasonal use permit, managing that resource and setting the rules and restrictions for use relative to those agreements.

Yes -- and almost all ski area Special Use Permits on USFS land don't allow the ski area operator to generally exclude the public from the permit area.   

Alpental does have a policy of disallowing travel within the permit area outside of operating hours -- but that restriction is due to safety concerns stemming from the extensive use of explosives for snow control within the permit area.  Granola powered uphill travel is permitted during operating hours.

Similarly the tubing area at Summit Central is limited to ticket holders -- for similar safety related issues.

Almost all ski areas exclude the use of snow machines and sleds by the public from the special use permit area -- again for safety related reasons.

It is certainly within USFS regulatory authority to grant a Special Use Permit that limits public access -- I just don't believe that Mt Baker's Special Use Permit currently has such a provision for the upper parking lot.   If the USFS was considering amending the current special use permit with such a proviso going forward -- I would certainly expect that there be a public comment period before making a "record of decision" on the new special use permit.   

So far I know of no such process having happened -- do you have any information to the contrary ?

Yes -- and almost all ski area Special Use Permits on USFS land don't allow the ski area operator to generally exclude the public from the permit area.   

Alpental does have a policy of disallowing travel within the permit area outside of operating hours -- but that restriction is due to safety concerns stemming from the extensive use of explosives for snow control within the permit area.    Granola powered uphill travel is permitted during operating hours.

Similarly the tubing area at Summit Central is limited to ticket holders -- for similar safety related issues.

Almost all ski areas exclude the use of snow machines and sleds by the public from the special use permit area -- again for safety related reasons.

It is certainly within USFS regulatory authority to grant a Special Use Permit that limits public access -- I just don't believe that Mt Baker's Special Use Permit currently has such a provision for the upper parking lot.   If the USFS was considering amending the current special use permit with such a proviso going forward -- I would certainly expect that there be a public comment period before making a "record of decision" on the new special use permit.   

So far I know of no such process having happened -- do you have any information to the contrary ?

I have spoken with several people at the Sedro Wooley MB Forest Service Office about this assertion by Howat that he will be charging people to park at the upper lot if they are not paying customers.  All of them expressed serious doubts that this was something that was approved of and moving forward.  Still waiting to hear back from the field supervisor for the ski area for confirmation.  There are some dramatic changes in the backcountry in the last ten years.  An explosion of users (snow shoers, new backcountry converts) is rapidly changing the paradigm of a 99% of the ski area users and 1% hippy backcountry skiers.  The forest service loves seeing non-ski area reacreationalists while the ski area obviously sees a threat to the bottom line and their hold an a big segment of the public.  Growth in the ski industry in all areas is flat.  The backcountry growth is whipping along at 20% per year. this doesn't include the masses of snow shoers. Do the math, (I am sure Mt. Baker has), and you can see where this is heading.

I had a long talk with one of the field workers today.  He shared with me that ski areas all over the (Alpental especially) state are complaining about non-paying customers using up parking spaces.  No where has the Forest Service allowed them to set up a parking system just for non-paying customers. 

So, you mean that something someone on a message board heard might not be an actual, real proposal? *Shock*

Isn't the 20% growth in backcounty users based on sales of gear? Most of those people will never step outside the ski area boundaries. Judging by the number of people skiing inbounds on plate and tech bindings with AT boots and "bc" skis, I would have guessed a higher percentage.

I don't know the answer to the source of the 20% stat, but that sounds likely, Aaron. However, significantly more folks are starting to get that gear away from the lifts too - in my limited experience so far this season it's been mostly at the really obvious and popular access points including two mentioned in this thread - saw TONS of folks on my one trip each to tour from the upper Baker lot (late November) and from the upper Alpental lot (sometime in January), as well as multiple folks who seemed to be pretty fresh to the sport touring up out of Paradise on this past Thursday. I've had multiple workmates recently tell me about finally taking that AT or splitboard gear out away from the lifts just this season. On top of the increase in folks taking up BC skiing/boarding as well as slowshoeing and XC skiing, we also are seeing population growth in both the Puget Sound area as well as up in Bellingham continuing apace ( www.psrc.org/assets/13311/RSC2-18-16Grow...n.pdf?processed=true and fortress.wa.gov/esd/employmentdata/repor...atcom-county-profile and worth noting that a Bellingham realtor claimed to me recently that there's been a BIG uptick in outside interest in Bellingham over the past year or so in particular and that it is accelerating not slowing - she mentioned folks from CA who are starting to think more about climate and who are now able to work remotely via computer/internet as one particularly big contingent of house buyers).

Running a ski area is a marginally profitable enterprise.  It is the crowded holiday and weekend days in Jan and Feb that put them in the black.  Beer sales in the pub are an important profit center, in lieu of a parking fee how a two drink minimum? 

How about an underground, heated parking garage,
with retail & restaurant space occupying ground level.
I'd call it 'Seeking A Pass Life'.

I'd pay $10 / day at Stevens if it guaranteed I'd get a parking spot.

So far I'm 0 for a lot on getting any of the "renewing pass holder" benefits. Missed-out on the bike park tickets due to foul weather shutting ops down the day I made it up there, got told I needed to go wait in a huge line at Guest Services to get some sort of season pass thing for ski-check and every time I've tried to use the day of free, premium parking, there hasn't been a spot available in that lot. Two comp night tickets are useless because they hand out those things like candy at all the movie premiers in the fall and and as for a free hot wax, I do that all the time at home without wasting my time waiting for it to be done.

I think next year I'll just give Boyne East my pass monies and let Stevens pick up the scraps...

That does nothing to help solve the parking equation.

Duncan decided to block the upper lot today...

... with all the day hikers, tourers, and snowshoers still there! Eventually we were let out but the 1/2 hour being blocked in while the ski area threw a fit sucked.

The USFS law patrol posted to the area today said it was Duncan's lot to use as he sees fit. Ostensibly the reason is an expected, unauthorized party in the lot.

This is poor management by the ski area and the USFS.

And so it begins.

as the mayor of LoT4, I can feel Duncky's pain.

Duncan decided to block the upper lot today...

The USFS law patrol posted to the area today said it was Duncan's lot to use as he sees fit. Ostensibly the reason is an expected, unauthorized party in the lot.

ski area Special Use Permits on USFS land don't allow the ski area operator to generally exclude the public from the permit area.

You were saying?

Spoke with the permit supervisor for Mt. Baker.  There is no specific plan at this time to start a fee based parking plan for the upper lot.  There are lots of discussions and ideas being thrown around. For most of us who backcountry ski and arrive at the ski area early this is a none issue.  You are free to park on the state maintained highway anywhere.  That includes the area just past the upper lot.  So if you don't want to pay the fee to Mt. Baker, park on the road near the old aid room.  At the end of the day you will still be able to ski to your car, you will just have to travel another 50 meters or so.  If you have ideas or thoughts about the upper lot contact Seth Greenfield at the Mt. Baker FS office and give him your input.  Snowpark, yearly fee?, what would people stomach?  He is curious to hear people's ideas.  He will be meeting with the ski area this spring to let them know how people feel about this and try and come up with a solution for the congestion there. (Seth Greenfield, 425.238.8308) Again, if you don't like it you can just do what I will do, arrive early and take a spot by the upper lodge, which is part of the highway system.

There are no shoulders to park on on the section of the road that you're talking about, I don't think it's technically legal to park in a lane of travel but it's currently tolerated.

I'll bet that what is going on behind the scenes is that Mt Baker Ski Area wants an update to their special use permit to expand their parking lots. 

Collecting $10 from a carload or granola powered skiers/snowboarders/snowshoers and risking generating bad will doesn't seem like a winning business plan.   

But getting an updated permit that will allow them build another 250 parking spaces with the potential to sell another 1000 lift tickets on peak days has a better prospect for good business.

Ostensibly the reason is an expected, unauthorized party in the lot.

I hear that the party was a rave that had no permits and no plan for keeping tripping morons alive in winter conditions. Apparently super high ravers were seen walking up avalanche prone slopes in party wear.

I'm not defending the parking bs but this was a LEO response to a dumb ass party.

Apparently super high ravers were seen walking up avalanche prone slopes in party wear.

... and this is different than a normal weekend in the Baker backcountry?

Actually, thanks for the clarification about the party. I have no issues with either the the ski area or the USFS trying to avoid potential problems. The manner in which it played out was screwy.

My impression was that the management of the situation by the ski area and the USFS enforcement on hand was sub-standard and was done with no postings or notification of the action. The enforcement staff was apparently unaware of the road blockage and appeared to not be coordinated with ski area regarding the road closure. Several dozen cars were in the upper lot that day. Loads of hikers, snowshoers, skiers, and sightseers were using the access as they have for years. The closure left those wanting to leave scratching their heads.