Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance

It would be great if the CBA would also include backcountry snowshoeing. They face the exact same issues with access and parking, so interests should be pretty well aligned. The typical dont-destroy-my-skin-track problem is often more front country problem with novices and hopefully those minor issues with each others mode of transportation can be overcome in the alliance. The good thing is that the 'mission' page of CBA is neutral on the mode of travel, but in the announcement here you wrote "Western Washington is finally getting its own backcountry ski and snowboard advocacy group", so I'm concerned it will mostly be for skiiers. Might be nice to also ask for feedback in places like NWHikers where many avid snowshoers hang out.

Hi,

Our primary concern is the ski and snowboard community, simply because snowshoers are somewhat under the wing of the WTA and the Mountaineers. However, we do recognize that we all use much of the same terrain, and generally the same trailhead. I think that the issues of conflict are much less than what we share together in the grand scheme of things, and we want to have room to advocate for our shared interests. We are still working out how representation of the snowshoe community will work, whether that be a board seat or simply some tweaking of our messaging and outreach efforts. I will post on NW Hikers as well.

As a comment above makes clear, areas of conflict definitely do exist, and we do want to work to resolve them. Some positive steps here will be looking for ways to mitigate front-country conflict, hopefully through emphasizing that everyone is basically out to have a good time in the snow. You aren't alone leaving the parking lot anymore, and if ten minutes of chewed up skintrack, or downhill skier dodging is required, we want to make sure friendship and politeness rules the day. That said, we also want to implement as much infrastructure as we can (e.g. marked or suggested travel routes) to help mitigate conflict. We have to get land managers on board with this before we go around sticking signs in the snow.

Thanks for speaking up for your mode of travel!

Thanks for all your work and time!  I think your group is correct to focus initially on USFS, where the chances for skier-friendly access improvements seem greatest.
   
I don't care much for the aroma, but I smell changes coming in our National Parks' winter operations from Zinke's latest scam.  I'd expect additional fees for plowing, parking, and other traditional basic services fairly soon.  It looks as though motorized recreation advocacy groups will dominate his process, so it could lead to snowmobile tours, winter RV & sled camprounds, who knows, maybe even renting buildings out and cat-skiing at Paradise (Edith Basin & Paradise River headwaters are gerrymandered out of the official Wilderness):

"Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is moving to form a Recreation Advisory Committee to develop suggestions not only on how "public-private partnerships" can improve access and infrastructure on public lands, but also on how to generate more user fees to support sustainable operations."

"We used to have a Bureau of Recreation - we're bringing recreation back," Secretary Zinke said. "So I've hired a former Navy SEAL captain to evaluate our public lands and look at the recreation opportunities, so the American public can enjoy our lands."

Thanks for your input. We hope the Forest Service will be responsive to our efforts. In general, the Forest Service has a bit more of utilitarian mandate, which means that speaking up can produce results. Both the Forest Service and the Park Service face the same problem, however, of being perpetually underfunded and under-resourced.

Currently, the Park Service is proposing a massive fee increase for many parks, including Mount Rainier. Single-vehicle entrance fees would be $70 under this proposal, although only during 5 peak travel months starting June 1st, 2018. You can read about the proposal on the NPS website here.

Generally, the CBA agrees with the following statement from the Winter Wildlands Alliance:

"The Park Service is proposing this fee increase, which is projected to generate $68 million, in order to address an $11 billion maintenance backlog. We accept that fees increases are appropriate or necessary in some limited circumstances but we cannot and should not address a multi-billion-dollar maintenance backlog on the backs of Park visitors. This fee increase strikes us as unreasonably high, particularly when proposed in conjunction with overall Department of Interior budget cuts to the tune of $1.5 billion, including a $380 million cut to the Park Service budget."

The public comment period is open until November 23rd. You can comment directly by going to this NPS planning site . If you join our mailing list (on our website, we will not spam you), we will send out an email reminder about this a few days before the comment period closes. We will keep an eye out for other proposed changes at MRNP.

Awesome! Thanks for all the work in getting this going. I'm in full support of the projects outlined on the site. Especially the ones related to some of the "arbitrarily" locked gates around the state. What are some good ways for us to get involved and help out?

Appreciate your support and encouragement. Do you have specific gates in mind? We have some ideas, but want to hear from folks. Beyond that, a big priority for us is building relationships. If you or other people have contacts with the DOT, Forest Service, ski areas, or any other entities, awesome. We want to reach out to them and ask what their concerns are with skier usage and traffic, and establish ways to advocate for what we want as well.

Appreciate your support and encouragement. Do you have specific gates in mind? We have some ideas, but want to hear from folks. Beyond that, a big priority for us is building relationships. If you or other people have contacts with the DOT, Forest Service, ski areas, or any other entities, awesome. We want to reach out to them and ask what their concerns are with skier usage and traffic, and establish ways to advocate for what we want as well.

Sounds good! 

Here's a little list of gated areas that have frustrated me over the years. Many of these have already been mentioned. Of course some of those might have legitimate reasons for being locked, and many are probably outside the realm of immediate possibility. One can dream though, right?

Gates on Cascade River Road. I can't even count the number of times I've walked the last few miles on dry pavement. Also, plowing that road would be incredible.

Mowich Lake road: often gated until well after the snow is gone on the road. I've ridden my bike up there several times when it was gated, and there was no snow in sight.

410 gate and sunrise road

Skyline divide road

Twin lakes road: Not sure if this is the case anymore, but it when I lived in Bellingham a few years ago it often had a big snowbank plowed in front of the road entrance. The road would often be clear for several miles other than that. I asked the forest service and DOT about the snowbank, and if I remember correctly they said it was more of just a convenient place to put the snow. They said it was fine for me to go and shovel it out and drive over it, which I did a few times. Even if the snowbank isn't an issue anymore, getting some plowing up that road would be absolutely amazing.

It'd be great to get the paradise gate unlocked a few hours earlier in the morning, and maybe stay open later at night.

Twin sisters road (from the northern side). I know this is more of an issue with the logging company than a governmental agency. However, Having that road open would open up a pretty incredible area for skiing and other recreational opportunities.

It'd be cool to have the west side of HWY 20 gated higher up. Probably fairly unfeasible due to avalanche danger and other reasons. However, it'd be pretty rad to have snowmobile access to Washington Pass similar to what the east side has.

Colchuck lake road.

Excellent!

Thanks for the efforts to those involved. I would think that being a collective of various industry professionals only adds to the legitimacy. And possibly makes it easier to gain the ears of those that need to listen.

I predominantly ski Stevens pass area through out the winter. I've racked my brain over the years on what possibilities there where for access. Other then creating a few winter parking areas as mentioned, not much you could do with a plow truck.

The underutilized areas might be Martin Creek drainage, nason ridge(a mile long ridge that rarely sees tracks east of the first lump). The low elevation start at the west side train yard. Cascade meadows. I frequent all these places, and only see Chris and Radka. And that snowshoer guy up there. ..

The minor issues seem to be parking, and the occasional legal snowmobile mixing in. overcrowding of slopes and areas doesn't seem to be a problem. I could be wrong though.. I'm sure the more astute gentlemen of the pass can or already have weighed in.

Thanks again, best of luck, and I hope I'll somehow be able to collectively chip in and do my part.

How so ?  Plenty of collisions and injuries happen every  weekend at Alpental and the other ski areas.  Also Washington state law explicitly makes the descending skier responsible for any collisions.

Huh?  The land is USFS public land.  If the resort were to try to exclude the public from using that route (which has been in use since before Alpental existed) they would need to get the forest service to agree to changes in their special use permit.

Hi,

Sorry for the delay in reply- I wanted to take the time to dig up some actual documentation on this. Access at ski areas is a big discussion flash point, and often generates confusion.

The scenario I was envisioning would be an uphill traveler skinning to Source lake, but within the ski area permit boundary and on a groomed exit track. In other words, a collision between a paying downhill skier and a nonpaying user. This would be a bad deal for us uphill folk, because it would create a crystal-clear public safety reason to limit access. Basically, ski resort on FS land, as dictated by their permit, have a responsibility to maintain a safe environment for the public. You can read a blank version of their permit by clicking
here . The relevant language is "The holder has the responsibility of inspecting the area authorized for use under this permit for evidence of hazardous conditions which could affect the improvements or pose a risk of injury to individuals." Secondary to this, the resort is required to create an operating plan which takes safety into account, carry an insurance policy which may further dictate their operations, etc. So they have a safety mandate dictated to them.


The resorts also have a set of rights which are available to them, which are laid out in the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act (SAROEA). This act was updated in 2014, and the update includes some information on access to ski areas by the non-paying public. I have uploaded it to our google drive, and you can read the entire document by clicking here . The relevant section is on page 20.

Basically, resorts have the right to charge for their facilities, including plowed parking lots. They also have the right to limit access for public safety reasons. However, they cannot fully restrict access by charging an "entrance fee", and they cannot "charge for the use of National Forest System lands in which they have made limited or no investments.  Holders may not charge for use of non-motorized or motorized trails that are constructed and maintained by the Forest Service." Additionally, "Authorized Officers should strive to ensure that, to the extent possible based on public safety considerations, some portions of the permit area remain open to the public without charge, so that the holder's charges do not constitute de facto entrance fees."

Basically, the resort has a general directive to allow access by the public, but the right and in fact the responsibility to limit access in specific cases where there is a threat to public safety. In the case of the Alpental valley, there is some ambiguity. It would seem that the resort couldn't limit access to the summer trailhead for Source Lake, as it is a FS facility. On the other hand, they could easily be able to justify limiting access to Lot 4 on the basis of e.g. unsafe parking lot conditions, or on uphill travelers using their groomed trail out of the lot. It is my understanding that a similar situation exists at Baker, where the resort could technically not charge everyone for parking (as was apparently threatened), but could charge or limit access to some specific areas. This is also why Crystal now makes some provisions for uphill travel, but Silver Basin is permanently closed.

The ambiguity of the language in these documents is what leads to a lot of confusion in these discussions. However, the point I'd like to convey most clearly is that we as a community will get a lot farther by working with resorts to achieve their public safety goals. Yes, in general, we can't be barred or required to pay a private entity for access to the backcountry. However, in almost any specific case, we have a lot to lose. Acting in good faith and being understanding of the position of the resort is imperative to avoiding situations like what happened at Crystal.

Sounds good! 

Here's a little list of gated areas that have frustrated me over the years. Many of these have already been mentioned. Of course some of those might have legitimate reasons for being locked, and many are probably outside the realm of immediate possibility. One can dream though, right?

Gates on Cascade River Road. I can't even count the number of times I've walked the last few miles on dry pavement. Also, plowing that road would be incredible.

Mowich Lake road: often gated until well after the snow is gone on the road. I've ridden my bike up there several times when it was gated, and there was no snow in sight.

410 gate and sunrise road

Skyline divide road

Twin lakes road: Not sure if this is the case anymore, but it when I lived in Bellingham a few years ago it often had a big snowbank plowed in front of the road entrance. The road would often be clear for several miles other than that. I asked the forest service and DOT about the snowbank, and if I remember correctly they said it was more of just a convenient place to put the snow. They said it was fine for me to go and shovel it out and drive over it, which I did a few times. Even if the snowbank isn't an issue anymore, getting some plowing up that road would be absolutely amazing.

It'd be great to get the paradise gate unlocked a few hours earlier in the morning, and maybe stay open later at night.

Twin sisters road (from the northern side). I know this is more of an issue with the logging company than a governmental agency. However, Having that road open would open up a pretty incredible area for skiing and other recreational opportunities.

It'd be cool to have the west side of HWY 20 gated higher up. Probably fairly unfeasible due to avalanche danger and other reasons. However, it'd be pretty rad to have snowmobile access to Washington Pass similar to what the east side has.

Colchuck lake road.

Louis,

Thanks for laying out a sweet "wish list." Many of these areas are on our radar already.

From north to south:

Twin lakes and Skyline divide road are our main priorities on the 542 corridor. The local sled groups feel similarly, and we are trying hard to get the attention and engagement of the FS and hopefully the DOT. If you're interested in supporting this project, send an email to Erin Uloth, the District Ranger for the area, at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. I'd welcome any users here reaching out to her and letting her know that you use these areas and access there is important to you. I would say that these roads are probably the most likely places for us to change the status quo, maybe in the entire state.

Twin sisters road I will look into a bit more, I am familiar with the area but we hadn't put it on our list yet.

West Side highway 20 is unfeasible to due to avalanche hazard- it has actually been moved further west in some years due to avalanche and rockslide hazard.

Cascade River road: We (the various CBA founders) have also spent much time walking on this dry road. Basically, the park doesn't have the resources to even closely monitor it, much less plow it, so it is often arbitrarily closed. This is extremely frustrating, and we are hopeful we can make some headway on this road in particular because of the incredible nature of the terrain up there. It is an underutilized resource for sure. Odds are this will be a long, uphill battle involving high-level funding problems, which is depressing.

Colchuck lake rd: I walked this entire road, dry, the day before it opened last spring. Brutal timing. We met a FS crew that had driven up there and talked to them about the road a bit. Apparently opening that road is bureaucratically very dense- I think local law enforcement is involved, many papers have to get signed, etc. We are planning to weed into that thicket a bit more next spring, as I think winter plowing of this road is threatened by avalanches and a huge long shot. Expediting the opening, or moving up the gate to temporary higher spots as the snow melts, would be more of a priority here.

MRNP roads: Again, lack of funding and resources at a high level. Right now, we really are hopeful to just get some better information out there about the state of these roads. It is often unclear which gates are locked and which are not. hopefully more to come on this soon.

All of the areas that you mention are already accessible, and have been for years, by snowmachine, or walking. The problem is not lack of access points. The problem is soft backcountry users.

If you are trying to start a backcountry alliance, that means making a voice for skiers, and splitboarders, and bootpackers, and snowshoers, and xc skiers, and snowmobilers, not just the lycra clad rando community of guides. WWA is an inclusive voice for all winter land users, not just the high-brow seattalites that want access for their 2 days off work from amazon. Start hiking earlier, stay out later, quit your job. All of these solve the problem of getting to places you can already get too.

-Twin lakes road crosses incredible slide paths. That is why it is closed by the DOT. If your alliance 'opens' that blockade and someone dies, it would be libel

-Skyline rd is already accessible to within a few miles of the TH all winter, get there earlier

-All of your other goals are trivial and unrealistic. You are addressing the problem of overpopulation in the ski community by outsourcing the problems rather looking at the source

How about access off the mountain loop? That whole highway pass gets shut down and is way closer to all of the arc'teryx techies crowding every mountain pass and dead end road. What about those gates? What about access off the newly paved m. fk snoqualmie?

Or just buy a $500 snowmobile and $500 truck to carry it and get out there, like everyone who enjoys the areas you are trying to ruin already does.

NB: I'm not involved with the CBA.

How about access off the mountain loop? That whole highway pass gets shut down and is way closer to all of the arc'teryx techies crowding every mountain pass and dead end road. What about those gates? What about access off the newly paved m. fk snoqualmie?

Aha -- herein lie some shared goals among essentially all recreationalists.  For the Middle Fork, we're gonna need a lot more lowland snow.

Regarding the winter-user population growth: I don't think anyone can stop that, nor would we want to. Every winter traveler, sled, ski, or snowshoe, is someone who will vote to keep our mountains and forests undeveloped. We all feel the pressure of increased use across the Cascades, even in hidden stashes. Federal and state lands are everyone's, including each of us.

A lot of us would love to have the time to spend making multi-day jaunts deep into the Cascades, but it's also good to be able to put food on the table and spend time with our families. Indeed, the only reason I don't do more multi-day trips is the simple fact that I like my job. There are a lot of very "hard" skiers who can't free up enough time to fully utilize their skill, talent, and fitness.

If every ski-touring Seattleite turned up at a trailhead with a snowmobile and a trailer, snowmo access issues would be far, far worse, Parking in Sno-Parks would be impossible.

Crowding is becoming a safety issue of its own. The impact of density grows like the number of interactions, which is roughly the square of the number of people. It is starting to impact skiers and snowmobilers alike, as seen in the Hawkins Mountain accident, the Baker near miss, and the Kendall Peak accident.  One of the several ways to mitigate that hazard is simply to spread people out.

Thanks for being fired up about access. I think all of us are.

Expect passive aggressive like calling you whiny (sp?) or saying you are not being cool..not fun.. ...

Not saying you are being p.a.
..

CBAlliance,
First off thanks for stepping up to try and build a collective voice to support access to our mountains.  I am for this completely and am willing to assist with my time, energy, and money.
It seems to me that your view of the permit holder's ability to restrict access is much more liberal than mine.

I'm curious how you interpret the following language of the SUP:

E. Nonexclusive Use. This permit is not exclusive. The Forest Service reserves the right to use or permit others to use any part of the permitted area for any purpose, provided such use does not materially interfere with the rights and privileges hereby authorized.
F. Area Access. Except for any restrictions as the holder and the authorized officer may agree to be necessary to protect the installation and operation of authorized structures and developments, the lands and waters covered by this permit shall remain open to the public for all lawful purposes. To facilitate public use of this area, all existing roads or roads as may be constructed by the holder, shall remain open to the public, except for roads as may be closed by joint agreement of the holder and the authorized officer.

And from "Additional Seasonal and Year-Round Recreation Activities at Ski Areas" 2343.11, specifically the part about season long closures being inappropriate, which is what Crystal Mt. Policy specifically states.


6. Ensure that holder operations comply with Forest Service regulations (36 CFR 251.55(b)) and permit terms and conditions for non-exclusive use and that the ski area remains open to the non-paying public for all lawful uses that are not inconsistent with the holder's rights and privileges and public safety. Document in the operating plan authorized restrictions on use by the non-paying public, and require the holder to post these restrictions in locations where they would be effective in informing the public, for example, on the ski area's website and on site at a primary entrance or public information facility. In most cases, it would not be appropriate for restrictions to preclude all public use during the ski season other than by those purchasing a lift ticket or paying for other services.
Thanks,
-Kneel

"the ski area remains open to the non-paying public for all lawful uses that are not inconsistent with the holder's rights and privileges and public safety."

Kneel,

Thanks for your support and encouragement. It means a lot. I am not a lawyer, so I don't want to say I am an absolute authority on these things. However, I think you are getting at the broad provisions for other use that affect the ski area, and wondering how they are able to regulate their terrain so tightly. I believe that the sentence above is the key point here- the permit holder does have rights and privileges, as well as a mandate to maintain public safety. This is all theoretical. I think the practical point is that ski areas absolutely have the right to close areas to travel when they have safety concerns. If they are doing avalanche control work, which they have a right to, and some unwitting traveller gets hurt, that's on the ski area. So they close it.

I acknowledge there are all sorts of things that occur in the name of "public safety" that are weak facades for access restrictions. I don't think the public safety concerns of ski areas fall into the realm of hand-waving bureaucracy. I think they are very real, and worth respecting.

Again, thanks for your input. If you feel you have a significantly different interpretation of the language you posted, I'd be curious, but I think we are probably both speculating here until we get a lawyer on the line.

Thanks,
Conrad

For example the Okanagan- Wenatchee National Forest just had a comment period concerning the renewal for a number of Outfitter permits including issuing  new 10-year permits to North Cascade heli ski and North Cascade Mountain guides.

I would be interested to know how the CB Alliance responded to that specific recent scoping letter detailing current special-use permit plans.

CBA the fact that you didn't respond to my contention that your organization is set up to accommodate commercial use interests, I believe serves to confirm that fact.

I'm not sure that your Puppet Masters are going to let you respond to any of my posts.


One of the biggest safety issues in the mountains these days are guides killing clients and themselves.

It's no secret around these parts that I have an ongoing advocacy concerning transparency, accountability and safety measures to mitigate the impact of commercial use on, well everyone else.

And yet you remain silent on these issues, why?

Hi,

I didn't respond to you because I'm really pretty baffled about what you want me to say. It's not the mind-control drugs of my lizard-people overlords. From my perspective, some people were having a nice discussion in a room, and you barged in to insult and heckle me, and then shout about your own concerns.

I understand you think that guides are regularly either killing clients or nearly so, and then lying about it. Other than to tell you it makes me feel bad that someone would think I am an insane egomaniac, I'm not sure how to change your mind on this. You would think I am merely lying to serve my own purposes, and that the statistics don't reflect reality. I strongly encourage you to start a thread about this. Or, form your own nonprofit. There are many places in which you are welcome to lead your own discussion and espouse that viewpoint. I'm not going to discuss or debate it here with you. Our mission is not to make the backcountry safe per se. Rather, we'd like to make it easier for people to spread out (something that might be useful if you feel other parties are a hazard), and help people who are going to crowded areas have a better experience (something that civility plays a large part in).

If you can refrain from openly disparaging my profession and me (I have no interest in insulting carpenters), then I would love to have a civil discussion about the concerns you have raised. If you feel that anyone involved with the ski industry should not be involved in the CBA, I'm going to suggest to you that a)people who like skiing and are passionate about the outdoors often end up in the outdoor industry and b) repeat what I said earlier: "We do not represent the interests of any of these institutions as the CBA. We are all avid recreational skiers who want to help address the needs of the recreational community. While obviously the industry benefits from more skiers and more backcountry users, the point is that we as recreationalists have a political voice- for-profit entities already have the means and resources to advocate for themselves."

If you're unwilling to take that statement at face value, I'm not sure what else to tell you. Maybe you could come meet and talk to some of us in person, and you would be less conspiracy-minded or vitriolic towards us. It seems pretty easy to insult and dismiss people from behind a keyboard.

Let me invite you to make some relevant points:

What input would you like us to have on the scoping process happening in Okanogan-Wenatchee NF right now?

Do you think that the mere existence of for-profit entities on public lands is philosophically problematic? Should we take some sort of stand on this issue?

Do you think individual action is always more politically ideal, or would you consider that not everyone with shared interests always has the time to advocate for every single thing they believe in on an individual level?

Thanks,
Conrad

P.S. I appreciate you posting the uphill travel policy for loup-loup, and I will add it to our website as well.

It's kind of like an oil industry Insider who is appointed to the Environmental Protection Agency who touts the benifits to the people of piping tar sand oil underneath the Missouri River, when the reality is that the benefit is to the person who owns the pipeline.

Strawman much?

To your earlier point: yes forums are like town hall meetings. You seem to be filling the role of the angry crank who shows up to every meeting to shout people down while not offering anything constructive.

Freeski's post reminded me of another good wish list access spot. It would be great if the CBA could convince the DOT to plow Hwy 20 from Mazama to the Cutthroat Creek turnoff all winter long.  I don't think there are any avy paths that cross the highway between those points, so it would just be a cost issue.  Maybe we could crowd source the funds for an "experimental" season of plowing?  It would provide everyday access to such local favorites as Delancey Ridge, Shangrila and all of the the fantastic skiing around Cutthroat.  It would also facilitate day trip human powered access to Silverstar, the Wine Spires and even Washington Pass.

Freeski's post reminded me of another good wish list access spot. It would be great if the CBA could convince the DOT to plow Hwy 20 from Mazama to the Cutthroat Creek turnoff all winter long.  I don't think there are any avy paths that cross the highway between those points, so it would just be a cost issue.  Maybe we could crowd source the funds for an "experimental" season of plowing?  It would provide everyday access to such local favorites as Delancey Ridge, Shangrila and all of the the fantastic skiing around Cutthroat.  It would also facilitate day trip human powered access to Silverstar, the Wine Spires and even Washington Pass.

A local told me that this is already going to happen this year? That's all rumor, if someone has more concrete info please let us know.

Excessive or highly repetitive "ranting" or "venting" post will not be tolerated and may be deleted without notice.
As a member of this community you agree to post relevant topics.
As much as possible, your topics should be backed by facts, photographs or URL's where additional information can be found.
Excessive posting on similar topics, or excessively "calling out" others in this community are actions that are likely to have your posts or your membership deleted.

Now let's be nice😋

and you seem to be filling the role of the a******

don't like the argument? fall back on ad hominem! (yes, I did also, so don't call me a hypocrite).

To be clear, I'm trying to help create space for a serious discussion between reasonable people. IMO your unhinged conspiratorial arguments drive people away from the discussion and the site in general. You clearly care about access and related issues, so why not allow for the possibility that someone who has devoted a lot of unpaid time to the issue might not be working for "big outdoor"?

Of course some commercial guide is going to be against snowmo only access. The access is already there, perhaps if you want to drive your prius/subaru to every trailhead, move to SLC and go guide there. Or the front range, plenty of access. It would be good if more soft backcountry users left.

Ubering from amazontown to rei to pick up your arc'teryx for a trip then taking the light rail to snoqualmie isn't an option? Deal with it. Buy a snowmobile. Hike further. Take your sierra club pandering elsewhere.

I missed that quote from earlier about guides nearly killing clients and then lying about it. How many have you almost killed?

Keep up the good work CBA

Of course some commercial guide is going to be against snowmo only access. The access is already there, perhaps if you want to drive your prius/subaru to every trailhead, move to SLC and go guide there. Or the front range, plenty of access. It would be good if more soft backcountry users left.

Ubering from amazontown to rei to pick up your arc'teryx for a trip then taking the light rail to snoqualmie isn't an option? Deal with it. Buy a snowmobile. Hike further. Take your sierra club pandering elsewhere.

I missed that quote from earlier about guides nearly killing clients and then lying about it. How many have you almost killed?

I totally agree with your one point where you encouraged everyone to get snowmobiles! Everyone knows a REAL cascade hardman drives a snowmobile, not a cowardly little foreign car. If i'm not mistaken, most of Fred Beckeys first ascents involved a snowmobile approach up a logging road, and everyone knows he NEVER simply parked his car at a trailhead and started hiking. I did hear that he rode in a helicopter a few times in Alaska though, so I'm unclear on how that plays into his hardmanly-ness. Please advise on that distinction. 

I'm slightly unclear on your other point though: since everyone in Seattle is super rich and will now be buying snowmobiles to access skiing(per your recommendation), do you think it might lead to more people skiing your stash?  I'm worried that the people that already snowmobile might get frustrated when they encounter all the new snowmobile owners riding in spots they've ridden for years. I know that crowded parking at snow parks has NEVER been an issue, so even though my gut tells me to advocate for more parking to spread people out , I've now learned (thanks to your salient points above) that things are perfect as they are and must never change. The more experienced sled skiers that don't like the new crowding will surely be amenable to your solution of simply uprooting their lives and moving out of state. I bet Alaska isn't too crowded yet, but maybe you have a better place in mind?

Thank you for your thoughtful and considered response earlier, it really helped get this discussion back on track.

BTW, are you still selling those arc'teryx jackets you had listed over on TGR? Was it too late to just return them to REI? www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.p...-both-Charcoal-color

When you move access directly into avalanche terrain you invite unsuspecting users to exposing themselves to the unforeseen hazards , usually nordic skiers and snowshoers , fatbikers ,etc. with no rescue equipment or knowledge of the mountain environment. Therefor you are raising the number of people out there who unwittingly become a liability and not an asset to others. X

Finally, someone is willing to advocate for the safety of helpless snowshoers and nordic skiers! Though I'm sure it bothers you that they haven't yet thanked you for the work you do, your handle indicates that you understand that, like a skiing Batman, it's best if you remain anonymous. Take a bow hero, though no-one can know your name, tales of your good deeds will surely be handed down through the ages.

To be clear, I'm trying to help create space for a serious discussion between reasonable people.

Heli-free, you might find a better audience for these rants on 4chan

Keep up the good work, CBA

Hey CBAlliance - thanks for reaching out to the community here and giving us a chance to have input. Like a few others here, I find myself questioning the choices for priorities on the "plowing" part of your projects plan.

Frankly while I think it's great and important to have some organized effort on access hereabouts, I'm finding it hard to get excited about pitching in given those stated priorities. It might help me if I could see a little past them - for instance could you share any sort of "grading rubric" you used for stack ranking the great many possible "plowing" projects one could imagine in our region? I think it might be quite helpful to expose that and have a robust community discussion about it, which would also let folks like me think out what additional ideas to contribute along with deciding whether we want to contribute more in terms of time and energy toward your mission. I don't think this would need to be a time-consuming thing for you to put out there, assuming you guys did have some method to how you winnowed to your current list.

Hey CBAlliance - thanks for  reaching out to  the  community here and giving us a chance to have input. Like a few others  here, I find myself questioning the choices for  priorities  on the  "plowing" part  of  your projects  plan.

Frankly while I think it's great and  important to have some organized effort on  access hereabouts, I'm  finding it hard to get excited about pitching in given those  stated priorities. It might help me if I could see a little past them - for instance could you  share any sort of  "grading rubric" you  used for stack ranking the great many possible "plowing" projects one could imagine in  our region? I  think it might be  quite  helpful  to expose that  and have a robust community discussion  about it, which would also let folks like me think  out what  additional ideas to contribute along with deciding whether we want to  contribute more  in terms  of time and energy toward your mission. I don't think this would need  to be a time-consuming thing for you to put out there, assuming you guys did have some method to how you  winnowed to your current  list.

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your response. Let me say right up front that there's no formula here. I wish we had one- I'd share it in a second! We lack the resources to even put together data. I understand that the project selection seems a little haphazard, and that is in large part because we are really shooting for things that are feasible and that we have resources and connections to maybe make happen. I will acknowledge that there isn't one obvious project for us to be throwing all our time and money at, such as the Hurricane Ridge road in Olympic NP. So, what's the point? And why the current plowing priorities, which are Twin Lakes/Skyline on 542 and the Kendall/Commonwealth TH?

Our plowing priorities are based on reducing pressure on the two most heavily accessed backcountry areas (anecdotally), which are Snoqualmie Pass and Mt. Baker. Lot 4 at Alpental and the Table Mountain/Bagley Lakes area are under huge pressure from backcountry users. These areas face the greatest potential user conflicts, present the largest issues to resorts, and also frankly just offer a crowded scene that bums everyone out. You can read flowingalpy's dispatches from the front, if you want. Steven's Pass also obviously has issues,* but to my point above has far fewer plowing-related solutions. But to make it simple: where there are too many people trying to go to the exact same place through resort infrastructure, they need to have options to spread out. Otherwise, we stand to lose access as resorts become fed up. We can either argue amongst ourselves about the theoretical legality of these losses (e.g. Crystal), or we can try and do something productive about it. Plowing is a thing we can do.

So, let's say you're not too thrilled about these plowing projects because you feel they don't represent a great way for the BC community to access anything cool. As you might have read, many people feel that the huddled masses (or just insert some insults for whatever group you don't like) should continue to plague the easy front country, while they ski their secret stash in relative peace. To that point, I would say that making access more straightforward or plowing a part of a road for parking just ups the standard. There's plenty of places to go out there (as in, millions of acres), and no one is stopping you from walking farther. The "don't blow up the spot" debate has been hashed to death. It happens every time a guidebook comes out, or someone posts a TR of a "stash," ad nauseum. If we start to lose access to places, no one will be there at the TH to check whether you are a super-rad local or not. We will simply be banned. With that said, many places that people are dreaming of getting to are low on the feasibility scale. That's not to say we will never try. It's just that it's hard and we'd rather start with some easier wins and establish good relationships so that we can then go push on agencies for bigger goals that we all might share.

We have talked about putting out a poll to folks to see what they are most interested in, which would provide the objective process you're looking for. We might still do that in some form in the future to help determine what these next steps for plowing might be.

Honestly, I think it's more transparent and fairly useful right now to just have a discussion about it. Maybe I will compile a list of ideas and shape that into a poll. I'd still like people to have space to question the premise. Plenty of people have spoken up about their priorities. What do YOU want to have plowed? Nothing? A berm in front of every skiing house in Seattle? A road to the top of Rainier? Let's hear it.

-Conrad

*If any of you have particular concerns about Stevens, feel free to message Rowan Stewart directly.

there are rules for parking at the source lake dog park trail head
that are not being followed nor enforced. security clean up in LoT4

Is there more then one Rowan Stewart? I just hung out with him at Stevens over new years, and he made no mention of being involved.

I have suggestions, but most are providing more day and overnight parking.