March 5, 2005, Hawkins Mtn.
3/5/05
2593
4
Desperate for some skiing but pessimistic enough to have packed the hiking boots along with the ski boots, Forrest and I headed up the Cle Elum River Road with some hopes of actually being able to drive the road all the way to the end to the Mt. Daniel/Cathedral Rock trailhead. That was plan A.
Plan B was Hawkins Mtn. We zipped up the road past a little red sign at Salmon La Sac, drove for another mile or so on dirt and on snow for the next 4-5 miles to the turnoff for the little mining road up Hawkins. It looked sort of skiable from the road, and Forrest voted for plan B, as he hadn't ever skied here before, so B it was.
Oddly, we saw no other cars beyond Salmon La Sac, and more oddly, no bilers.
We hiked the trails and old mining roads on the south facing slopes of the northwest ridge of Hawkins in sneakers and eventually switched to ski boots at about 5000'.
Nobody has signed the summit register this year. From the top there was a surprisingly good 300' run dropping into Scatter Creek on the NE face on crusty powder. We traversed over the ridge to the south and skiied the big bowls on the SE face where there are a lot of old melted out high-marker tracks in spring-like conditions.
We climbed about 500' back up to the SW ridge of Hawkins and skied an almost continuous ribbon of snow on the gentle shoulder of the ridge back down into the trees. In places the ribbon was only 3-4 feet wide, with spring-like corn on the left (south) side of the swale, and crusty cold snow on the right side.
The tree skiing was pretty desperate business, but as mentioned above, we were pretty desperate skiers! We managed to ski to within 600 vertical feet of the car.
On the drive out, we noticed a complete lack of car tracks in the now softened snow and commented on the fact that we hadn't heard the lovely whine of the 2-stroke steeds all day long. At Salmon La Sac we stopped to read the little red sign with streamers that we'd zipped past in the morning: "No wheeled vehicles beyond this point."
That and perhaps the fact that everyone has given upd on ski season explained why we didn't see any other skiers out there, and the 1+ miles of dirt from Salmon La Sac seems to be keeping the bilers out too.
Plan B was Hawkins Mtn. We zipped up the road past a little red sign at Salmon La Sac, drove for another mile or so on dirt and on snow for the next 4-5 miles to the turnoff for the little mining road up Hawkins. It looked sort of skiable from the road, and Forrest voted for plan B, as he hadn't ever skied here before, so B it was.
Oddly, we saw no other cars beyond Salmon La Sac, and more oddly, no bilers.
We hiked the trails and old mining roads on the south facing slopes of the northwest ridge of Hawkins in sneakers and eventually switched to ski boots at about 5000'.
Nobody has signed the summit register this year. From the top there was a surprisingly good 300' run dropping into Scatter Creek on the NE face on crusty powder. We traversed over the ridge to the south and skiied the big bowls on the SE face where there are a lot of old melted out high-marker tracks in spring-like conditions.
We climbed about 500' back up to the SW ridge of Hawkins and skied an almost continuous ribbon of snow on the gentle shoulder of the ridge back down into the trees. In places the ribbon was only 3-4 feet wide, with spring-like corn on the left (south) side of the swale, and crusty cold snow on the right side.
The tree skiing was pretty desperate business, but as mentioned above, we were pretty desperate skiers! We managed to ski to within 600 vertical feet of the car.
On the drive out, we noticed a complete lack of car tracks in the now softened snow and commented on the fact that we hadn't heard the lovely whine of the 2-stroke steeds all day long. At Salmon La Sac we stopped to read the little red sign with streamers that we'd zipped past in the morning: "No wheeled vehicles beyond this point."
That and perhaps the fact that everyone has given upd on ski season explained why we didn't see any other skiers out there, and the 1+ miles of dirt from Salmon La Sac seems to be keeping the bilers out too.
Thanks for the report. That's a nice area and it is good to know that there is still something to ski there.
About the "little red sign at Salmon La Sac": I think you were fortunate not to get cited because I know the FS has been patrolling up that road, and have even heard of a recent citation for doing just what you did (drive past the "no wheeled vehicles" sign). I believe that the main goal of the FS patrols is to curtail the snomos from going where they are not supposed to go, something that I would guess most skiers would strongly support. I'm wondering if it might weaken our (non-motorized recreationists) position if we ignore closures, which is the "official" problem with snomos in the area?
About the "little red sign at Salmon La Sac": I think you were fortunate not to get cited because I know the FS has been patrolling up that road, and have even heard of a recent citation for doing just what you did (drive past the "no wheeled vehicles" sign). I believe that the main goal of the FS patrols is to curtail the snomos from going where they are not supposed to go, something that I would guess most skiers would strongly support. I'm wondering if it might weaken our (non-motorized recreationists) position if we ignore closures, which is the "official" problem with snomos in the area?
Thanks so much for the report Chris. Especially because I had hoped to ski Hawkins this year.
I'll bet that any of us, excited about a ski adventure to come could easily miss a road-closed sign. We might feel a bit guilty about it, and let it go at that. Who knows what sorts of signs I might have missed in the past? :)
However, the situation has recently changed, and disregard for closures could have undesirable consequences for BC skiers.
Snomo violations of the motorized vehicle closure of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness by a group of 'outlaw' snowmobile riders have become an increasing problem and in addition to other measures, the snomo community at large has been asked to police itself, a difficult task at best. [See the threads from last spring. ] There has been considerable energy expended by a number of parties on all sides on this subject within the last 4 or 5 months. As I understand it, the organized snomo community recognizes that there may have been problems, and they are going to work towards a solution.
It does not make their task any easier when members of the non-motorized community also violate closures. Nor does it enhance our position with respect to decision-makers.
One could make the argument that motorized incursions into the ALW are on a different scale than say driving on a closed road. Whether this line of reasoning would impress the higher levels of the Forest Service, I don't know. However, here is point a little closer to home. Road 4315 only about 1/2 mile from the road closure sign in question. Rd 4315 is a voluntary snomo closure area. This Forest Service closure is endorsed by snomo organizations representing Kittitas County riders despite some internal opposition, as I understand.
The purpose of the voluntary Rd 4315 closure is to allow the non-motorized user group a place to go where there will be less chance of user group conflict. Snomo riders who do not respect the voluntary closure may do so because they do not think the closure is justified, or because they didn't see the sign(s) or perhaps any number of other reasons.
On this basis, violations of a road closure just a short distance away by members of the non-motorized recreational community are particularly sensitive.
I sure hope Chris knows that I am not trying to give him a hard time in any way, but instead pass on some info that people may not have been aware of on this subject.
Larry
I'll bet that any of us, excited about a ski adventure to come could easily miss a road-closed sign. We might feel a bit guilty about it, and let it go at that. Who knows what sorts of signs I might have missed in the past? :)
However, the situation has recently changed, and disregard for closures could have undesirable consequences for BC skiers.
Snomo violations of the motorized vehicle closure of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness by a group of 'outlaw' snowmobile riders have become an increasing problem and in addition to other measures, the snomo community at large has been asked to police itself, a difficult task at best. [See the threads from last spring. ] There has been considerable energy expended by a number of parties on all sides on this subject within the last 4 or 5 months. As I understand it, the organized snomo community recognizes that there may have been problems, and they are going to work towards a solution.
It does not make their task any easier when members of the non-motorized community also violate closures. Nor does it enhance our position with respect to decision-makers.
One could make the argument that motorized incursions into the ALW are on a different scale than say driving on a closed road. Whether this line of reasoning would impress the higher levels of the Forest Service, I don't know. However, here is point a little closer to home. Road 4315 only about 1/2 mile from the road closure sign in question. Rd 4315 is a voluntary snomo closure area. This Forest Service closure is endorsed by snomo organizations representing Kittitas County riders despite some internal opposition, as I understand.
The purpose of the voluntary Rd 4315 closure is to allow the non-motorized user group a place to go where there will be less chance of user group conflict. Snomo riders who do not respect the voluntary closure may do so because they do not think the closure is justified, or because they didn't see the sign(s) or perhaps any number of other reasons.
On this basis, violations of a road closure just a short distance away by members of the non-motorized recreational community are particularly sensitive.
I sure hope Chris knows that I am not trying to give him a hard time in any way, but instead pass on some info that people may not have been aware of on this subject.
Larry
Yeah, agree that we need to follow the posted signs, but that doesn't mean we need to just accept 'em w/o firing off some missives to USFS. Some of these closures make no sense. To wit (from access pages linkable from this very site):
North Fork Teanaway Road #9737 is closed at 29 Pines Campground, there is bare road due to private timber company winter logging activities for 1-2 miles, very muddy, snow and ice beyond.
... so ... the rationale for keeping public is typically that the roads get tore up when wet so they get closed. OK fine, but be CONSISTENT. And don't let people drive damn TRUCKS on a taxpayer road under those same conditions on the far side of a gate that the public can't reach! Anyone wanna bet that aforementioned private timber company leaves that stretch of road in terrible shape when they're done?
There's also one other scary / paranoid possibility for how this year will shake out as it goes on, that somebody in Pro Ski mentioned in idle conversation. In what will probably turn out to be drought year, USFS might well start closing access to wide areas of forest especially East of crest because of high fire danger, once summer rolls around, in which case it would turn out to be really depriving the public to have otherwise reasonable recreational destinations cut off now while we still have a chance to get there and it's "too" wet. Fire closures doesn't usually happen in PNW but it's a pretty frequent occurence in the intermountain West, there's ample precedent, and lord knows the local yahoos have proven that theory right with a couple of the recent big Wa state fires being notably human-initiated.
North Fork Teanaway Road #9737 is closed at 29 Pines Campground, there is bare road due to private timber company winter logging activities for 1-2 miles, very muddy, snow and ice beyond.
... so ... the rationale for keeping public is typically that the roads get tore up when wet so they get closed. OK fine, but be CONSISTENT. And don't let people drive damn TRUCKS on a taxpayer road under those same conditions on the far side of a gate that the public can't reach! Anyone wanna bet that aforementioned private timber company leaves that stretch of road in terrible shape when they're done?
There's also one other scary / paranoid possibility for how this year will shake out as it goes on, that somebody in Pro Ski mentioned in idle conversation. In what will probably turn out to be drought year, USFS might well start closing access to wide areas of forest especially East of crest because of high fire danger, once summer rolls around, in which case it would turn out to be really depriving the public to have otherwise reasonable recreational destinations cut off now while we still have a chance to get there and it's "too" wet. Fire closures doesn't usually happen in PNW but it's a pretty frequent occurence in the intermountain West, there's ample precedent, and lord knows the local yahoos have proven that theory right with a couple of the recent big Wa state fires being notably human-initiated.
FYI-Drove up past Salmon la Sac to Fortune Ck and up north side of Hawkins yesterday with no signs and no problem in 4-R'er; didn't see anybody either. Short ride on Esmeralda. Little snow amounts!
Reply to this TR
Please login first: