Home > Forum > Parks Department closes 410 access

Parks Department closes 410 access

  • Joedabaker
  • [Joedabaker]
  • Joedabaker's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
16 May 2004 06:25 #169368 by Joedabaker
Parks Department closes 410 access was created by Joedabaker
Zap mentioned the numerous runs down the backside of Crystal to 410, which opens up another slide path of discussion-Since most af our topics are eventually going downhill I will continue to decend-<br>Crystal's Master Development plan is being approved. The Parks Department run by Ewe in the White River area have put the clamps on skiers and borders for the upcomming ski season that enter the Park from Crystal Mountain. Parks department with their huge budget were undecided but possibly going to hiring patrols to nab skiers or boarders that slide to 410 and giving citations for trespassing. I have been harrassed and interogated by the Park Rangers about my access to 410 in the past. The Park Department never initially organized a reason why they did not want tax paying citizens to enter from Crystal ski area. So they gave out numerous unjustified excuses why they did not want us to access runs that we have done for 30 plus years. Excuses not limited to, but such as: skiers are damaging the foliage and scaring animals, litter, they may set up a private bus schuttle, injured persons need to get rescued by the Parks (Although Crystal Patrol does the rescues). The heat turned up and the Parks were threatened by a coalition force to be taken to court over the matter. Now the Parks had to organize a reason to close the boundry in the Winter. Meanwhile, Ewe took the card they had the best to deal and played it to their advantage. One must recognize that in a card game with the Parks it's hard to beat the house. They basically bent Crystal Mountain over and made them squeel like pig (sorry for the deliverance reference). They knew Crystal wanted to develop and to develop they needed approval of the Master Plan, which includes Park approval. Here lies the Parks Ace of Spades-To get the Parks (Ewe's) approval Crystal had to close access to the Park Boundry or lose back country access from the South side of The Throne to Three way. Period-No discussion! So...Crystal cannot afford to lose South Back which is a main attraction of the area. Therefore they reluctantly gave in to Ewe's desire to finally close the rope to the park for good which includes access to Crystal Lakes and Crystal Peak. Crystal Patrols (I think) are instructed to pull passes of Park boundry violators. Needless to say many people feel violated by the Parks Department's management of the situation. They were not cool. I would descibe it as sneeky blackmail. This area of the Park is in no danger of overuse, so why not use the Park? Jackson Hole borders the Park yet they are now able to access backcountry. Heck, if they are concerned with overuse they should just close down Paradise! I would like to read what others have to say on this matter. Personally I feel it violates my rights to enjoy our wonderous National Park the way it was supposed to be enjoyed. So I think I will get off of my computer call a couple friends and go ski Chinook in the PARK as it should be accessed everywhere in the park.<br>Joe

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 May 2004 15:33 #169369 by Zap
Replied by Zap on topic Re: Parks Department closes 410 access
Joe,<br>Thanks for the insight. During the past few years, I have purchased a midweek ski pass at Stevens and then accessed the backcountry runs down the east and west sides to Hwy 2. This past season the highway dept. posted signs prohibiting hitchhiking from the hairpin turn on the west side across the pass to Yodelin. This hinders some of the best backcountry access at Stevens. By the end of the year, I made the decision to get a midweek pass next year at Crystal so I would not have to deal with the troopers when I was hitching a ride back to Stevens. Now your info about the closure of the 410 access. We've been violated. My only recourse is to ski every weekday that the bureacrats are sitting in their office riding a desk. Zap

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Lowell_Skoog
  • [Lowell_Skoog]
  • Lowell_Skoog's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
17 May 2004 09:20 #169374 by Lowell_Skoog
Replied by Lowell_Skoog on topic Re: Parks Department closes 410 access
I presume that this closure applies only to skiers who buy a Crystal Mountain ticket, right? I can't see how the ski area or the park can apply any pressure against people who tour up to the divide and drop into the park if they haven't bought lift tickets.<br><br>I've never skied down to SR-410 from Crystal, but I've toured to Crystal Lake, Crystal Peak and Chinook Pass lots of times, after touring up from the ski area. I don't intend to stop.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Jason_H.
  • [Jason_H.]
  • Jason_H.'s Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Senior Member
More
17 May 2004 11:35 #169375 by Jason_H.
Replied by Jason_H. on topic Re: Parks Department closes 410 access
Not to dilude the topic, but I would like to ask, "What authority do the parks and FS have?" For instance, if a several groups go into the north cascades park and unfortunately perish in avalanches, falls or the like. Do they have the ability then, to close the park or wilderness? Obviously they do, if they can shut a border down like the one at crystal. I don't see the reason for this (is it due to rescue costs or liability). Maybe someone from the park or crystal could clarify. As for myself, it would have to be a good reason to keep me out. I remember not having a ticket and climbing up Baker ski resort and having to leave my name and p# before I left (though, they had good intentions). We refused (this was the winter of 99). I wouldn't be amazed if this has something to do with it...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 May 2004 15:09 #169377 by J.P.
Replied by J.P. on topic Re: Parks Department closes 410 access
The irony to all of this, (at least last time I stopped to read the posting at the 410 closure gate at the Crystal turn early last season), is that snowmobiles are permitted to use the 410 access all the way in the White River entrance road to the White River Campground. How an occasional backcountry skier could pose any threat to the park in contrast to motorized access is certainly questionable. <br><br>Further, the NPS has historically encouraged backcounty use via 410 in this area by providing self-registration permits and a drop box for them at the gate bulletin board. Drawing a line between those who ski down and those who ski up is certainly a difficult one for enforcement purposes unless they literally guard the line, which we all know is virtually impossible in that area.<br><br>All that said, there is no doubt that politics are at play with the Crystal permit as the Final EIS/ permit decision is still not officially released (unless I missed something). I believe that Larry Donovan at the USFS in Mountlake Terrace is still the permit coordinator. When I spoke with him one year ago the permit was due "in a month or so". Has anyone else spoken with him lately regarding this issue and/or the permit in general?<br><br>J.P.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • chris_fast
  • [chris_fast]
  • chris_fast's Avatar
  • Offline
  • New Member
  • New Member
More
04 Jun 2004 09:49 #169415 by chris_fast
Replied by chris_fast on topic Re: Parks Department closes 410 access
I suspect the NPS's motivation is money. As you all know, the NPS is experiencing massive budget cuts, and it's only supposed to get worse. What I've read makes the budget cuts sound like it's just another facet of the Republican push to starve "big government." The desired result is a continued subcontracting of government services to private, for-profit corporations, who allegedly will provide the services "more efficiently" than government bureaucrats with their government pensions.<br><br>MRNP has to pay for many rescues every year (just yesterday they pulled one dead and one injured climber off of Liberty Ridge), and has significant law enforcement expenses. Just compare to N Cascades NP. The backcountry users there tend to be more experienced than all the gumbies trying to climb Rainier. In spite of the proximity of Baker Ski Area, you don't get the flood of lift area skiers (a group largely ignorant when it comes to navigation, avalanche awareness, and backcountry travel) going into the NCNP.<br><br>Every time they have to fly in a helicopter to pull some climbers or skiers out of a tight spot it's that much more out of the trail maintenance or staff budget.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
08 Jun 2004 02:50 #169430 by jt
There is a simple solution that the parks could make--stop providing rescues. While it's nice to know that a helicopter may have our backs if we get hurt, what happened to good old take responsibility for yourself? If things go terribly wrong, I guess your f...ed. Welcome to the risks of the sports we love. This may sound callused, but it's one true way of deflating a major thread in their argument. The irony is that as a society we don't question the need to provide rescues for victims in car crashes or to search for lost hikers, hunters, etc., yet we don't restrict access to our highways nor threaten to close down access to those other user groups. To this I say let's gather as often as possible next winter, in as big of groups as possible, ski right up to the edge of the Crystal Ski area, and rip it down to 410! See what they do then.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.