Closure notice received at MRNP Entrance Station

Instead of being offered a map, newsletter, smile or eye contact, I was handed the below leaflet by the expressionless ranger at the south MRNP entrance station on Sunday the 28th. They did not appear to be enforcing this closure (or if so they had a limited view of the "Paradise Day Use area"). My question for MRNP regulars: have they handed this out before and, if so, how frequently and is it ever enforced? <br><br> <br><br>Closing areas to skiing seems like a slippery slope.<br><br>PS: I apologize that the quality of the above is not so good (it was photo'd not scanned). If anyone has a better copy please post and I'll remove the above.<br>

Never seen it before.<br>Must just be for Oregon skiers, eh? <br><br>BTW, Jeff, Sorry we missed you guys on Sunday.<br>It would have been nice to see you again.

Wow, they didn't hand one to you?? They handed one to Andy's car, of course, he also had Oregon plates. Hmmm . . . <br><br>Indeed sorry I didn't see your group though with JW's great video I feel like I was vicariously present.<br>

I didn't get the handout, but I got a little lecture on the same subject Sunday, 11/28 as I was buying an annual pass card at the gate.<br><br>The gate gal insisted that we had to go to Muir Snowfield as she was eying my ski gear in the back of my car. The whole thing definitely made me feel uncomfortable. I am not going to ski over bushes or rocks. I wonder how much cover they think they need. <br>My opinion is that "they" were a little excessive in their approach.<br><br>I think there was some pretty good snow cover, trees were exposed on the lower meadow. I tried to ski on the trail or near the trail on the lower slope. I am sorry but skiing was just fine around Glacier Vista. <br><br>I was hanging around the lower end of Glacier Vista and this young woman who was hiking up started to chew out a skier who had stopped on the way down. She started spouting all this stuff about park regulations and park authorities. She had decided this was a real important issue to her. But you know what? There was plenty of snow cover there. I didn't interject myself into their discussion because you wouldn't want to get me started. It was too much of a beautiful day to get into a bitch session. <br><br>Fortunately the skier kept his cool and basically blew her off gently. Everyone needs to just use their common sense. <br><br><br>

It was too much of a beautiful day to get into a bitch session.

<br>I agree, and I hope I do not tarnish the memories of Sunday for anyone by posting the above. I guess I probably should have waited a few days before posting.<br><br>

Everyone needs to just use their common sense.

<br>Certain parts of the Federal government seem to be in short supply of common sense lately.<br><br>Is the closure of Sunrise to skiers next? Joedabaker?<br>

I didn't get the notice but was told I had to stay on the Muir snowfield. At the time I was a bit confused since no reason for this was given for this. I think we should all be safe to ride wherever this weekend. Bring on the snow.

I think they are doing this beacuse in past years when the snow pack has been thin people have traveled a short distance from the parking lot, built a kicker and spent the whole day doing tricks in one spot. Then once the snow melts, that spot ends up with a lot of damage to meadow plants and flowers.<br><br>I'm hoping that we'll get a major dump soon and this will become illrelivant.

I think backcountry skiers would like to give the impression to others that they are different from snowmobilers in that the resource is treated with great respect.

<br>With all due respect Larry, I don't understand your comparison or what you are trying to imply. Backcountry skiing is inherently significantly less resource damaging then snowmobiling. In addition, anecdotally, in my experience backcountry skiers seem to be excellent stewards of the environment. <br><br>Does MRNP have any factual basis to claim skiers cause disproportional resource damage when the snowpack is low? Is this their sole reason for the closure? The last sentence of the first paragraph also states, "Skiers and snowboarders run the risk of injury due to the many rocks and trees protruding through the snow."<br>

I think they are doing this beacuse in past years when the snow pack has been thin people have traveled a short distance from the parking lot, built a kicker and spent the whole day doing tricks in one spot.  Then once the snow melts, that spot ends up with a lot of damage to meadow plants and flowers.<br>

<br><br>Where I come from they call those "WEEDS".  I guess 20' of snow won't hurt the plants, but skiing on thin snow does?  <br><br>I'm just being a bit sarcastic here, but I sure get tired of the park nazi's on Chinook Pass. It used to be a fun place to hike and ride 10+ years ago.  Now its a non-stop hassle by the park patrol......

This is a reasonably tricky issue, and I think Larry_R's point is quite an interesting one. I think you could find science that person for person BC skiers do a lot less (local) damage to environment than bilers, even beyond the 2-stroke oil+carbon issue. If for no other reason than that we're covering 10% of the ground, and are (mostly) making our micro-navigation choices at more reasonable speeds. But that doesn't mean BC skiers shouldn't think about these issues. As a parallel, mountain biking orgs, while obviously causing less resource damage than trail bikes or horses, have had to show real progress on taking a corrective stance on resource wear issues to avoid bikes being chucked off public land in many cases whenever user conflicts have arisen. <br>Think of it this way. How many times have you accidentally sawed off a growing fir top in less than 36 inch cover? Multiply that by the (growing) number of skiers using the same hill. Concentrate it to a single terrain unit, as has pretty obviously been the case this November while we are mostly waiting for other destinations to fill in. I've been up there twice in last 30 days and I know I've impacted a few individual plants despite making efforts to be careful.<br>I can't think of a good solution to this since it is really obvious that you can't just cordon off a ski run here and expect people to respect it, there are too many directions that people are trying to go, and the lure of untracked snow 'beyond the ropes' will dash any such efforts.<br>However, that said, I have seen/heard of many cases where MNRP gets reactionary about resources or access without having much data or science. Based on my biased obserations, if they really want to help out the Paradise meadows, they need to get more serious about aggressively nailing (ticket$!) people who go off trail in the summer. Or big (sometimes guided!) groups who get off an acceptablly low impact Muir route in spring/summer and thrash the cryptosoil above Pebble Creek, or on other sides of mountain like at Spray Park. Et cetera. Either that or show me the results of some actual study about resource damage to ground under low snow pack and make be a believer in the science, and dispel the historical impression I have that MNRP will shut the gate first, ask questions later.

I often clip  saplings or brush while skiing, especially during low snow conditions.  The damage is obvious: ski edges scraping bark, broken branches, etc.  It's not much of a cognitive strain to imagine that vast numbers of skiers, sledders, hikers and snowshoers might, if concentrated in a limited area, cause real and enuring damage to the natural vegetation under such conditions.  Anybody unable to see how this might be true?<br><br>So...what's the situation at Paradise this time of year?  Anyone notice vast numbers of skiers?  Snowshoers?  Dayhikers?  Are there especially high concentrations of all of the above in the meadows right above the parking lot?  Those shrubs with the tattered branches all pummeled and crushed and scraped bare of bark: how do you suppose they got that way?  Does this seem like a good thing?  (Another way of asking: are these plants worthless "weeds," or are they an integral part of the local successional ecology, interwoven with all else that we enjoy...like, say, large and small mammals, wildflowers, groves of mountain hemlock, meltwater streams?)<br><br>I am not taking some sort of purist moral stand here.  I ski backcountry too, occasionally at Paradise.  I'm just suggesting that as backcountry recreationalists who claim an appreciation of the natural world we might as well begin by admiting that our recreation has real effects on that world, and that these are often not at all benign.  If we want to take advantage of, say, the fact that the National Park Service keeps the Paradise road plowed and sanded all winter, we're going to have to suffer a few rules and regulations related to the presence of the crowds.  There is no mystery to this. Those who don't like rules might consider heading elsewhere.  The first clue to the absence of rules will be the parallel absence of plowed roads, giant parking lots, and uniformed law enforcement personnel.<br><br>Note that the Park Service has had a policy forbidding snow sliding in low snow conditions (at Paradise) for quite a while now.  The notices may be new (I don't really know, since I'm seldom down there) but the policy is not.  I'm under the impression that this is common knowledge among those who ski there regularly, but perhaps it's not.<br><br>Edit to add: Yeah, what Wolfs said.

Note that the Park Service has had a policy forbidding snow sliding in low snow conditions for quite a while now.

<br>Does this (or will this soon) include closures to other areas of MRNP in spring/summer? Like say Sunrise, Spray park or Summerland?

I agree with Marharf that the park service has the right to try to protect the vegetation around the Paradise area, although I did ski on Sunday. Boy that was nice! I ended skinning up on the paved trail and finished East of the parking lot, out the road a bit. This seemed to work quite well since they had better coverage East and no ranger to yell at me. Weeds? I cannot imagine what the park service spends to revegetate areas around Paradise. I would like to think that I was not too evil in skiing that day, but I can see how the snowboarders that had a jump 20 yards above the parking lot were having an impact. Also, felt sorry for the ranger who was trying to get the sledders to stop sledding next to the large sign that said no sledding! I think if we disperse our impact out, it is no big deal. Unfortunately, the area adjacent to the parking lots gets all the yahoos.

I suspect what Randy said is probably the motivation for this. That said, it's likely many on this board (myself included ) have 'skied to the parking lot' on days when the coverage probably wasn't quite good enough to do so. With the amount of traffic there, it takes a toll. What bugs me is the lack of consistency. I (skiing on the trail just above the Paradise lot) stopped and had a great conversation with a ranger in full uniform about snow conditions, skis, etc. a couple of weeks ago. "The best snow is right in here," he correctly pointed out. Now people are getting closure notices and lectures? ???<br>

I don't think these rules are new. As far as I know, the reason is to protect the delicate meadows. The way I see it, these rules are what keeps the park such a great place to recreate. Sure, you might think the patch of snow you're on is sufficient to protect the environment, and I'm sure occasionally you might run across a less than cordial ranger, but they're general rules which are probably reasonable considering the amount of use the park gets. The rangers have a job much like police. I work with police alot and some of them are jerks, but I don't blame them too much, cause I also see the unreasonable disrespectful "yahoos" that they deal with on a regular basis. I'll try to follow the rules and enjoy the hike. The snow will be here soon enough.

MRNP has had an environmental study in its management plan. Due to the environmental study, they are only allowed for play if there is at least 3 feet of snow on the ground for winter recrational activities in designated areas. 3 feet was seen as a reasonable suggestion becuase certain areas would melt out faster than others without damaging the vegetation.<br><br>Read the management plan.

Er yeah I just read the management plan, and this is exactly what I mean about capricious enforcement and bad science.<br><br>The management plan makes the point about the resource protection specifically with regard to snowplay, which is reasonably clearly defined differently from skiing/snowboarding. And clearly it IS different because it involves thousands of deliberate travels over the exact same piece of snow, once those runs are constructed. That's totally different from a reasonably dispersed skiing populace and to claim that a study on snowplay impacts and the specific compendium laws that result apply equally to the impacts made by skiers is bad science AND capricious enforcement.<br><br>Nevertheless, despite my bitching about the bureaucracy and its tactics, I reiterate my original point that when these situations arise we're still better off trying to understand both sides of the story and to make efforts to interpret whatever real and noble intention to help preserve resources in the Park might lie behind whatever heavy-handed piece of paper they pass out at the entrance station, and act accordingly.<br><br>Maybe it will just be easier to smuggle my skis into the park, hidden under a bunch of blankets or something

Oh boy. This is an ugly harbinger of what may come along the Crystal-MRNP border.<br><br>If it doesn't, then I can simply be written off as another paranoid wackjob. And that would be fine.

I had to bite my keyboard lip when this conversation was more active, because my initial reaction was spout off my thoughts on the matter without knowing much about it. That said, I instead wrote the park's plant ecologist to learn her thoughts on the matter. She today responded thusly:<br><br>"Thank you for your interest in the regulations regarding snow depth and skiing. We have some data from a variety of places that I will share with you. Near the parking lot, in an area where we allow "snowplay" - essentially sledding, we conducted a survey of vegetation height. The area is covered with mostly low shrubs and young trees. The maximum height of the measured shrubs was 2.7 feet while the mean was 0.9 feet. Conditions of snow vary and general recommendations for protection of vegetation are to have 2 feet of snow above the vegetation to allow for compaction, particularly where there is repeated use in the same track. As you climb higher in Paradise, the shrubs and tree transition to lower vegetation, that could likely withstand a lower snowpack for repeated activities.<br><br>"We have photodocumentation of damage to vegetation done by skiiers and snowboarders when the snow levels are low. The carving of turns in low snow can expose and carve into the vegetated surface. Some people run across young trees, breaking their tops off. Additionally, the construction of jumps has led to damage by exposing the ground and even pulling out plants while digging the snow to create the jumps.<br><br>"Snow compaction studies have shown that heavy snow compaction can lead to shifts in vegetation resulting from the mere compaction as well as the delayed meltout time. I'm sure you have seen areas where heavily used cross country ski tracks or even tire tracks are still visible while areas adjacent have melted out. This delay in meltout in the alpine/subalpine environment with a short growing season can lead to a complete shift in the plant community from the showy flower species to more grasslike species.<br><br>"The requirement of 2 feet of snow for skiing and boarding is in place to protect the resources of the park. I am certain that there are many skiers and snowboarders who are very conscientious visitors and in small numbers would have minimal impact on the Paradise area. Since Paradise is the most heavily visited area of the park in summer and winter we must develop guidance that prevents unacceptable impacts."<br><br>She ended her note with an invitation to ask her any additional questions if I had any, but this is reason enough for me.<br><br>Now that you know more on the park's position, I'll offer a sliver of my own: the takeaway here, I believe, is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If that means I need to boot it a little ways up the trail until the snow deepens, I'm more than willing to do that. And to be honest, I'm a little surprised to find backcountry skiers that aren't.<br><br>Having said that, I'm certain there are those wholly unconvinced by the small amount of science she forwarded. You may have good reason to believe that. However, if having worked heavily in research for the past decade has taught me anything it's that there's always other interpretations and other data. Sometimes you have to make a call and have that be the policy. With a delicate natural resource, it seems quite reasonable that policy would fall on the conservative side. And we are talking about Paradise here--the area surrounding the parking lot is the destination of many summer tourists. I think it's less than surprising they pay more attention to its usage and its showy flowers than to less popular parts of the park.<br><br>With regard to crabby rangers, she didn't send me any data on that policy.

Good research Skip. Somewhat related, I was told by a NFS ranger (tele skier) last winter that late snow melt out which leads to reduced plant growth, is one problem that may be developing at Yellowstone as a result of snow machine trails in the park. I'll walk a bit if that's what it takes to keep the resource.

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  If that means I need to boot it a little ways up the trail until the snow deepens, I'm more than willing to do that.

<br><br>Thanks Skip for taking the time to get the info. I agree with you, if I need to boot a little ways further up the trail, no big deal. I love the start of the "new" season, and am always anxious to ski that new snow, but I also love the beauty the park has to offer in the summer with that beautiful endless blanket of wildflowers. <br>

Yeah, nice work, Skipper,<br>High Five<br>

It would be useful if during marginal snow depth conditions, that perhaps the rangers could clearly mark the lower meadow trails - so we could ski down the actual trail with confidence, thereby reducing damage.<br><br>It seems to me that if yer cut'n turns and you can see that you are turning up meadow veggies, then y'all know that's not good. Most of us, I believe, try to be responsble. Some of the younger guys may need to be educated as to how it takes many, many years for meadow damage to repair itself.<br><br>

That would be nice, but frankly the paid staff rangers are so understaffed that they don't have time to do winter trail marking hardly at all. The vast majority of winter trail marking and maintaince is performed by volunteer's from the Washington Ski Touring Club's Nordic Patrol ( www.wstc.org/patrol/patrol.htm ). You could join with us and be part of the solution. As a Ski Patrol volunteer you get to stay in a nice house at Longmire and sometimes enjoy getting to Paradise before the gate opens to the general public.

Randy - Thanks for the link. I checked it out.