NPS still counting 410 skiers

On Sunday 1/11 I was stupid enough to ski Crystal. Conditions where not very good and weather was lousy.
On one chair ride up I was seated next to a nice young man with BC gear, a very large pack and a NPS uniform. Now despite my dislike of the Park Service and their policies, I always  try and treat the actual individuals with respect.

We chatted and he said he was patrolling the boundary line! When asked directly by me he admitted, very defensively that his job was to count the number of ski tracks leaving the boundary and dropping to 410.
I asked him how many so far he had counted for the year and he said 10!
We wished each other a good day and parted amicably.

It really irks the crap out of me that the NPS is continuing this policy in an attempt to get supporting data to prevent future access to 410 from the Crystal boundary.

Big Brother is watching you and counting your tracks.!!!!!!!

Next pow day, I'm going to go lay some down ;D.

Are 10 enough to tip bolster their case? Good restraint - I had visions of you treating him to an "Un-Vailed" experience - leaving him hanging upside down with only his park badge to hide behind.

What's the NPS justification for this? Is there an 'official' position or other communication between NPS and Crystal explaining the issue?

Past votes, government control of freedom, and what it will ultimately cost all of us.

And the Park Service has the unbelievable nerve to whine about lack of staff and funding, both through their media propaganda outlets and when individuals ask questions! 

Did you hear the one about MRNP sponsoring an unlimited hydroplane?  It'll be called Miss Management...

well it sounds sketchy and overly restrictive to me, but maybe someone should try answering JimH's question.

Local City, County, State, and Federal Governments are suffering through one of the worst budget crisis in history. People are loosing their jobs. And yet someone feels the need to pay this dude to go skiing and count ski tracks. I can think of about a billion better ways to spend taxpayers money. Disgusting.

What's the NPS justification for this? Is there an 'official' position or other communication between NPS and Crystal explaining the issue?

This subject goes back many years.
The Parks master plan for the closure was long before Crystal's ROD for development. So you can catch up
READ THIS
Good bathroom reading.

I agree with altasnob...a waste of money, truck, drive time, environmental impact and the Park has to buy the lift ticket to boot. I suspect that the carbon footprint of the audit alone does more environmental damage to MRNP resources than the actual skier impact.

well it sounds sketchy and overly restrictive to me, but maybe someone should try answering JimH's question.

More reading...
This article in Powder Mag online

Like the Beastie Boys say, "You gotta fight...for your right...TO PAAARTY!

The NPS and MRNP are in desparate need to good leadership; it won't come until it is demanded by those who enjoy parks in person; there is a whole community devoted to keeping people out of parks.

But as Crystal Mountain sought to widen its lift-served terrain (though some proposed chairlifts, like East Peak and Silver King, didn't make the final cut) within the existing SUP, concern over the adjacent pristine areas rose sharply. Even to the point of the ROD requiring that Crystal Mountain hire a snow ranger to patrol the boundary.

I wonder if Scotsman's ranger was hired by Crystal and not patroling for MRNP.  I don't know if that changes anything, but it might shift the venom in another direction.

I don't understand... it's not illegal to ski on public land, it's not illegal to ski out of bounds from Crystal, it's not adding impact to the park for you to ski to 410, so what's the deal with skiing out of bounds and into the park if you're a trained and prepared backcountry skier/snowboarder? I would understand if the Park was constantly mounting searches for yahoo's that don't know any better, but either Crystal covers that up, or it doesn't happen. And 10 tracks in a month and a half is NOTHING. Did he count uptracks too? It's possible that the track-layers skinned back up and into crystal to their cars at the end of the day after farming that snow.

perhaps we should invite said ranger, and coordinate a group ski where everyone has a partner, beacon, probe, and transceiver and make a trip to 410.

I wonder if Scotsman's ranger was hired by Crystal and not patroling for MRNP.  I don't know if that changes anything, but it might shift the venom in another direction.

Absolutely not,
I discussed this with John Kircher (Crystal Owner) a couple years ago and they are making the Park buy their own lift ticket to do the audit.
Originally the agreement was that Crystal had to support the cost of the audit patrol, but the Park got so ridiculous and was abusing the service (funding), so Crystal dumped them and told them if you want to have this information, pay for it yourself.
Then the Park got mad and threatened to close access to Southback, so Crystal said OK we will put a chair up to the top of the King. The park backed off because they know a chair would create more problems than hikers.
If you shovel all the crap off that the Park has been selling. Ie...environmental impact, a couple scratched trees, rescue operations. The real underlying issue is MRNP is trying to arrange several private vendor operations (besides climbing) in the Park to support activities. Crystal's is right on the boundary, so there is easy access. New vendors contracted might cry foul because Crystal is getting free access and the Park cannot control or manage a number for fear someone will start a shuttle guide program from the access road to Crystal. So the Park is not making money out of land being used, Also the liabilities that can result of that activity.
Crystal is not going to stop a person from skiing down to 410 and as anyone knows who has done this trip it can be a long journey back to the area.

It's possible that the track-layers skinned back up and into crystal to their cars at the end of the day after farming that snow.

I was told that every trip on a skin track or lap on a set track in the park is considered a visit by the MRNP auditor.
So you ski down skin up and ski again that is two visits in the park.
Geeze.... ???

Thanks coyote and Joedabaker. I'll do some reading.

Its probably worth paying attention to the vendor/concessionaire selection process, if in fact MRNP is really trying to arrange some kind of new activity or service. Public review of that process may be easier to come by than administrative decisions, though you've got to keep your eyes open for it.

Thanks again.

Jim H -

Joedabaker is spot on, and you can learn the most about what might motivate our friends at MRNP by reviewing the Final EIS and the various appendices wherein the NPS attempted to set forth a case for environmental damage associated with this out of area use.  It will only leave you frustrated as their own data actually concludes that actual skier use is minimal and not likely to have impact.  That did not stop them from trying to put the screws to Boyne during the permit process -- I believe that the fact that the trail up to the King passes into NPS territory is not insignificant leverage, and explains why Crystal was silent during the controversy.

I, and others bound by a TAY affiliation, contested and then appealed the decision and were able to point out both the lack of evidence to support any environmental impact, and the complete lack of authority for the NPS to enforce any condition of closure through a USFS permit decision.  The latter is the technical issue the Hearing Officer stood on in his decision -- they simply lacked jurisdictiion with respect to the resort permit and the judge saw that they were exploiting the back door as a federal agency.

Upon receiving resistance at a public meeting in Renton after the decision had been issued, the USFS backed right down on their attempts to leverage access restrictions from the ski area to other backcountry locations, but MRNP stood fast until the Federal Hearing Officer in Portland closed the door on them with the final decision which was NOT appealed.

I have all of the (my) various appeal documents, briefs, and decisions archived somewhere, and would be happy to try to find them if of serious interest.  PM me if you are interested in more info.

I believe that the Enumclaw Public Library continues to retain hard copies of all of the EIS documents if you are not able to obtain them from the USFS or on-line.

Give 'em hell all,

J.P.

Non violent civil disobedience is the  only way to protest this.

I think we should write NPS STOP on our butt-cheeks( need 4 people) and hang upside down from the Rainier Express quad with our pants at our ankles a la Vail.

I'm volunteering for NP, anybody want SS and TO and P??
Joedabaker, Vogtski , acarey you guys game?????

The NPS STOP will have to be written upside down so it reads right in the inverted position.

RonJ will you do the writing for us???

Scottie-
Obviously I'm new to this internet thingy, but isn't your initial post here called 'bait'? What a renaisance man you are! Family man, skier, searcher, comedian, and now fisherman! You certainly hit the nail (carpenter too?) on the head when you joked in November that the wrong NPS building was being demolished! I'm honored to be invited to your brilliant protest, but my ass is already rather exposed over here. I respectfully suggest that you try to recruit some women for maximum national publicity... ;D Hope your flood repairs are proceeding as smoothly as possible!

Scotsman, too funny. If Henry David Thoreau were alive I'm sure he volunteer for your Butt-Board.

Non violent civil disobedience is the  only way to protest this.

I think we should write NPS STOP on our butt-cheeks( need 4 people) and hang upside down from the Rainier Express quad with our pants at our ankles a la Vail.

I'm volunteering for NP, anybody want SS and TO and P??
Joedabaker, Vogtski , acarey you guys game?????

The NPS STOP will have to be written upside down so it reads right in the inverted position.

RonJ will you do the writing for us???

Thanks, I think I'll wait and see another idea that the brainstorming committee comes up with.
Good line of thought-
Putting your a$$ out, in hopes of being noticed. ;D

I agree some non-violent demonstration/public disobedience/sit down strike would bring more attention to the many probles with MRNP management but could we muster enough people to make a difference with a sunday sit down  at the Nisqually Entrance on some dry sunday?  In bc ski clothes with gear. With appeals for coverage to the press beforehand.  And plenty of signs documenting grievances. If it was a nice dry day, we could all go skiing afterwards, probably earlier than the typical late opening.

I talked to a Ranger up there a couple years ago, they count the tracks and try to tell people the better lines down- avoid cliffs(?).  She wasn't stopping people, giving guidance and counting tracks.

I understood they were there everyday, at least in the afternoon and get a free ride down at the end of the day.  She was a snowboarder with snow shoes.

We are not complaining about the Ranger as a person. You a right that they do not stop people or even discourage dropping down to 410. You are missing the point in that the reason they are counting is to get data to support their wish to CLOSE access in the Future!

They want it to be illegal to drop down to 410 and have a permanent closure the same as Kempers and their counting is an attempt to show that there is a certain number of "visits" which is denuding the pristine nature
of that part of the park. They regularly document every broken branch they find and every candy wrapper they find in this area.

The Park is not being open-minded about this and working on the principle that we'll record data and then make a decision. They have already made the decision but have been thwarted in their attempt to enforce it. The data collection is biased towards providing the results they want, so they can get what they want.

Silver Basin and then some can definitely be skinned/skied at night. However, I'm now contemplating some night vision goggles in case...

I bet Palin would side with you. Just say "drill some lines in the bc" and she'll be in. There's your female representation.

Big Brother is watching you and counting your tracks.!!!!!!!

Truth be spoken. I believe that Steven's has already fallen victim with their RFID's...

I heard Uberaga mumbling about 'precious bodily fluids'.

We are not complaining about the Ranger as a person. ...
The Park ... have already made the decision but have been thwarted in their attempt to enforce it. The data collection is biased towards providing the results they want, so they can get what they want.

I agree; I think that you will meet many nice, personable, friendly people in the NPS. I can't think of one I've met over the last 40 years who has been mean, nasty, or spiteful [but evidently some on this site have encountered such employees and volunteers--and I don't doubt their tales]. However, the administration's agenda, the NPS and MRNPleadership's agenda, and the personal beliefs/philosophies of many NPS people are at odds with my philosophy and ideas about conservation (I did research on natural ecosystems for 30+ years and wrote a book on conservation).

There seems to be a belief in our society that if someone is nice and personable their beliefs and actions will be acceptable as well; not so--Bernie Madoff is a prime example, admired by all, his investors thoroughly screwed.

It is my opinion, that if a park employee can not agree with the enabling legislation for parks, then they should change jobs.

The NPS Organic Act of 1916: "The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

The earlier, 1899, specific legislation establishing MRNP explicitly states for "the benefit and enjoyment of the American people" and includes some directions on how to accomodate visitors.

In the Renton meeting, Uberaga repeatedly insisted that despite any evidence, his feeling was that skiing is detrimental to the park.

Needless to say, several members of the attendees lambasted him up and down for making such a ridiculous, unbased, biased opinion that completely jetted into the face of the entire procedure.

Other entities had spent millions of dollar and months of time and yet here was an administrator not only flagrantly flaunting the process, but did so outside of any official meetings, forcing the UFSF to quietly slip the closure verbage into ever one of the 6 alternatives.

Joeda is correct the Park Service has been counting tracks down to 410 for years and had the funding paid in part by Crystal but I heard the funding stopped within the past two years ? The big issue is the environmental damage caused by skiers frequenting the park and it is all documented. The traffic into the park has grown steadily in the past few years and there is a fear that Crystal is making a profit off of National Park land.

Joeda is correct the Park Service has been counting tracks down to 410 for years and had the funding paid in part by Crystal but I heard the funding stopped within the past two years ? The big issue is the environmental damage caused by skiers frequenting the park and it is all documented. The traffic into the park has grown steadily in the past few years and there is a fear that Crystal is making a profit off of National Park land.

Now, I don't ski around Crystal at all. So that fear on the part of MRNP seems pretty irrational to me as did the argument about commerce. If I follow their logic, because I bought a lift ticket at Crystal a decade ago, I became a Crystal customer forever and should be banned from skiing in the park. In my distorted view, when someone who bought a lift ticket and took the lift to the top, they were acting as a Crystal customer; when they left the ski area boundaries, they ceased being a customer, whether they left by skiing or by driving. I would love to see the documentation of damage to the park by skiers. I don't doubt that vandal skiers can do damage, that skiing on inadequate snow can do damage, altho not as much as heavy snowfall and avalanches, the casual hikers around Paradise and Sunrise in the summer, and early plowing of the Paradise Valley road to get ready for tour buses (many trees are destroyed). I think it is incumbent upon us as a bc skiing community to remind each other (self-police) to protect and preserve the park, its infrastructure, and its vegetation, just like it is incumbent upon park personnel to reach out to and educate the park using public. I would rather see a partnership between the experienced and trained bc community and the park, rather than an adversarial relationship. I, and I believe many other, assist less experienced tourists in the bc in finding their way and avoiding hazards, and even sometimes rescue them. I think it would be cool if those of us who have experience; 1st aid, avalanche, and route finding training; and carry appropriate equipment (avy, navigational, 1st aid) could become a cadre and resource assisting the climbing rangers (and getting minor privileges like getting thru the gate early ). I'm volunteer ski patrol on MTTA and its fun, helping out the hapless, and provides yet another stimulus to ski every other day despite conditions.

I think it is incumbent upon us as a bc skiing community to remind each other (self-police) to protect and preserve the park, its infrastructure, and its vegetation, just like it is incumbent upon park personnel to reach out to and educate the park using public.  I would rather see a partnership between the experienced and trained bc community and the park, rather than an adversarial relationship. 

Well said! I am as anti-resort as anybody in the skiing community, but closing slopes between a developed ski area and a road b/c of the 'environmental inpact' of 10's of skiers per season is ridiculous! The bad blood between skiers and MRNP is so discouraging and unnecessary -- backcountry users in general should be the park's first line of defense. The park itself is a majestic and valuable jewel. I'm happy to see it preserved and appreciated and equally dejected to see it so poorly managed.  :'(