telemark skiingbackcountry skiingPacific NorthwestWashington and Oregonweather linksThe Yuki AwardsMt. Rainier and Mt. Adams
Turns All Year
www.turns-all-year.com
  Help | Search | Login | Register
Turns All Year Trip Reports
Backcountry Skiing and Snowboarding

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
11/19/18, 03:08 AM

Become a TAY Sponsor!
 
Trip Reports Sponsor
Pro Ski Service
Pro Ski Service
Turns All Year Trip Reports
(1) Viewing these pages constitutes your acceptance of the Terms of Use.
(2) Disclaimer: the accuracy of information here is unknown, use at your own risk.
(3) Trip Report monthly boards: only actual trip report starts a new thread.
(4) Keep it civil and constructive - that is the norm here.
 
FOAC Snow
Info Exchange


NWAC Avalanche
Forecast
+  Turns All Year Trip Reports
|-+  Hot Air
| |-+  Random Tracks: posts that don't fit elsewhere
| | |-+  Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
:
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All | Go Down Print
Author Topic: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance  (Read 14511 times)
Beardedclam
5Member
Offline

Posts: 7


Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #50 on: 01/03/18, 07:56 PM »

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?
« Last Edit: 01/03/18, 09:15 PM by Beardedclam » Logged
snoqpass
Member
Offline

Posts: 278


Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #51 on: 01/04/18, 07:01 PM »

Keep up the good work CBA
Logged
samthaman
Member
Offline

Posts: 304


WWW
Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #52 on: 01/05/18, 02:16 PM »

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? https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php/314039-BNIB-Arc-teryx-Mens-Cerium-LT-XL-Womens-Nuri-L-both-Charcoal-color

« Last Edit: 01/05/18, 02:58 PM by samthaman » Logged
samthaman
Member
Offline

Posts: 304


WWW
Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #53 on: 01/05/18, 02:39 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: 01/05/18, 07:52 PM by samthaman » Logged
Beardedclam
5Member
Offline

Posts: 7


Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #54 on: 01/06/18, 06:59 PM »

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

Posts: 657


Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #55 on: 01/13/18, 01:59 PM »

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

Keep up the good work, CBA
Logged
Jim Oker
Moderator
Offline

Posts: 1552


Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #56 on: 01/13/18, 05:04 PM »

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.
Logged
CBAlliance
5Member
Offline

Posts: 29


WWW
Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #57 on: 01/13/18, 06:39 PM »

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.
Logged

cascadebackcountryalliance.org
flowing alpy
Member
Offline

Posts: 1325


Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #58 on: 01/14/18, 05:05 AM »

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
Logged
alecapone
Member
Offline

Posts: 826


Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #59 on: 01/14/18, 07:20 AM »

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.
Logged

scott
flowing alpy
Member
Offline

Posts: 1325


Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #60 on: 01/15/18, 06:00 AM »

LoT4 paid parking should be mandatory on weekends.
Logged
flowing alpy
Member
Offline

Posts: 1325


Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #61 on: 01/15/18, 12:07 PM »

what does the local health authority have to say concerning this obvious health concern? What does the local water authority say?
Well that’s a good question that i’m afraid will not be answered,
concerning the most shithole parcel of land in the Alpental Valley.

to combat the poop accumulation
i’ve considered tossing em to LoT3
there are ZERO waste receptacles
Logged
Jason4
Member
Offline

Posts: 271


Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #62 on: 01/17/18, 09:29 AM »

Thanks Conrad for continuing to engage the community publicly!

As a long time Baker local I have seen the massive growth in backcountry use in the Bagley Bowl area.  I fluctuate between distress at the crowding and pride in the local community when I see a dozen tracks in the NW Coulior on Shuksan.  Either way, more people are getting after it and we have less access points.  This last Sunday was a prime example, I took 3 runs in the ski area and had to go home because I was too stressed out about the crowds.

Based on my interactions with CBA they seem to respond well to reasonable input.  I suggested improving human powered access to Twin Lakes and Skyline Divide even though I have a sled and can get to those two places easily enough when I want to.  They started a conversation with our local FS land manager and I don't expect much to happen this winter but it's proceeding better than I expected with the FS.  Maybe next year we'll have reasonable access on skis outside of the ski area.

It's only going to be a good thing to spread people out.  More rad lines will get skied, it'll push our sport a little further, and a new secret stash will be discovered 30 minutes further out than the last one that is now a named run in a guide book.
Logged

Free your heel, free your mind.
Fix your heel, fix your problem.
- Pred, 2013
Jim Oker
Moderator
Offline

Posts: 1552


Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #63 on: 01/17/18, 01:03 PM »

Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my query. To be clear, I'm not looking for a "formula." The sort  of "grading rubric"  I'm thinking of is more along  the  lines of a way of making  goals clear to  a group  of people. IME this is very useful to do  well at the start of this sort of venture, or else you'll  have people talking at cross purposes w/o really knowing why. Better to be able to say "that project idea doesn't do  nearly  as well on fulfilling  goals #1 and 2 than these  others on our idea list, but is there  some other important goal that you  think we're missing that your suggestion hits on, or do you  think we're wrong that  it  wouldn't meet these goals as well as those other  projects?"

And yes, talking it out is good - that's exactly what I tried to suggest.

What I infer from your reply is that you have some goals that could be used for at least roughly ranking plowing project ideas that are along  the lines  of the following:
1) will provide handy parking to a big population  of  skiers
2) will provide access to a significant amount of desirable touring  terrain, allowing a fair number of skiers to  coexist as happily as can be reasonably hoped for (no one can cure surfer-like localism so that shouldn't be a goal)
3) is a feasible project - e.g. doesn't require major $$$ or lengthy enviro reviews or so forth. This may be eased over time but it's important to start  with some  lower-hanging fruit to  gain  some "wins" early on

I  also see that you are putting  a focus on  relieving potential conflicts  at ski areas around both parking and  sidecountry access from  parking and the lease areas. I didn't list this  as I'm not sold yet  that  it  should be  a goal in and of itself. I think that  succeeding on  the  3 goals I listed is  sufficient; if this  happens to  yield projects that  relieve some potential  conflict, great. But  the win should be succeeding at increasing access to good terrain  for significant population(s) of skiers. By the same token, I'd be wary of using the fact that  many skiers go to  Baker and  Alpental to start tours as an  indicator of where the  best projects  might lie, unless in fact you  do  want an explicit goal  about  reducing ski  area conflicts  (at which  point I'd love to  know  more about why this should be an explicit  goal - hence my wish for discussion  about such a  goals list!). E.g. I'd want to  know that potential Highway 2 projects and notions  like  expanded plowing along the road by  gold creek or opening up other parking a little  further east along the highway have been  properly ranked on  these sorts of goals versus the Commonwealth lot (particularly given that, as of now, tourers are successfully parking at both Summit West and Alpental  to access Source/Snow/Commonwealth/Kendall/Etc. - but if you  have some inside knowledge that  this  is  at serious risk, versus just being concerned based on trends elsewhere, now might be a good time to  share that fact; or if you  have a goal around "scoring points" with  ski area management in  hopes of maintaining parking and  sidecountry access via a good relationship, it would also  be good to  articulate that as a clear goal to  any community you  want to  engage for their energy,  ideas, or $$!!).

I could type more, but perhaps this will  give you a  better  idea of what  I was driving at. I'd love to  see some good community discussion  about such a goals list, and see you  guys take a stand on  what will ultimately be the definitive list (at least for the next while...). As a project manager who  had to harness the energies of large groups  with  divergent motivations for  multiple decades, I've  learned that  this  bit of crucial foundation-laying will pay good dividends later, even though  at the  outset it may  seem to  be a "process thing" that  distracts from just getting some good work done.

Oh, and yeah. I've seen the mounting gripes about Alpy upper lot and Baker parking  and sidecountry shenanigans. Again, if relieving those issues is a primary goal of yours, it would be great  to  make that explicit and have a community discussion  about the perceived merits of that as a goal. For my  part I'd rather see the focus on  gaining new access to significant terrain for lots  of people. My strong hunch is that  no matter how many new lots you plow, the ski area pressure  will remain, given our area's mounting population and the  apparent increase in the % of folks who  are getting out  to hike, snowshoe, and ski tour (and, at least at lot 4, to sled and get the  dog out for a short poop walk), and the relative obviousness of moving into  sidecountry from that ski area you may know so well... I'm reminded of  what urban planners learned about building more highways in  traffic burdened cities back in the sixties - they'll just invite yet more developers to build housing  and thus more  traffic and the roads you  hoped to relieve will be just as bad or worse as a result.


« Last Edit: 01/17/18, 01:14 PM by Jim Oker » Logged
Jason4
Member
Offline

Posts: 271


Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #64 on: 01/18/18, 10:18 AM »

Thanks to Jim and HFNC for pivoting this back to a conversation that might get us somewhere in the near future!

I appreciate hearing the thoughts on the grading rubric as someone who also deals in a professional environment of establishing priorities with competing requests and poorly expressed objectives.
Logged

Free your heel, free your mind.
Fix your heel, fix your problem.
- Pred, 2013
AlpineRose
Member
Offline

Posts: 184


Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #65 on: 01/30/18, 03:12 PM »

It seems to me the current Jim Hill/Arrowhead access and its problematic  parking situation would be a perfect issue for the newly formed CAB to work on.  Jim Hill has been a traditional ski touring destination for DECADES, before some TAYers were even born.  In my experience, parking was NEVER an issue in the past.   In recent years, WSDOT has started throwing hissy fits about it.  Why now and not before?  A clearly defined and posted policy allowing - not prohibiting - parking by the ventilator station would be a nice accomplishment.

Recent post:
Jim Hill-ish
Logged
CBAlliance
5Member
Offline

Posts: 29


WWW
Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #66 on: 01/31/18, 11:03 AM »

It seems to me the current Jim Hill/Arrowhead access and its problematic  parking situation would be a perfect issue for the newly formed CAB to work on.  Jim Hill has been a traditional ski touring destination for DECADES, before some TAYers were even born.  In my experience, parking was NEVER an issue in the past.   In recent years, WSDOT has started throwing hissy fits about it.  Why now and not before?  A clearly defined and posted policy allowing - not prohibiting - parking by the ventilator station would be a nice accomplishment.

Recent post:
Jim Hill-ish


Cross-posted from the other thread:

"Hi All,

I called and spoke to the WSDOT Wenatchee office today. They didn't have a clear or ready answer about this, after getting passed around to a few people. Jere (Jerry? Gerry?), the very nice lady who answered the phone is doing more research and will hopefully get back to me shortly. I will pass that on as soon as I hear something more. I think Clevo is basically right in what he says but it would be much better to hear it from the DOT and have a map or a stated policy.

Others have brought up this issue to us already, and we are well aware of the problem. Here's our understanding of the situation: The DOT, not unreasonably, sees Highway 2 as a transportation corridor that they are mandated to keep open and safe. Unfortunately, they also see people parking on or near the side of the highway as a threat to this mission. Parking in general along the highway 2 corridor is a big can of worms, especially with the resort. Our hope is that as we establish a better relationship with the resort, we can lean on the DOT together to create better alternatives.

The current situation of total ambiguity benefits no one, and we will keep hounding the DOT until they at least present some sort of policy or concrete information to help people. If we can work from there to make a good-faith effort to follow these rules, we will have more leverage to change them.

-Conrad"
Logged

cascadebackcountryalliance.org
Micah
Administrator
Offline

Posts: 162


Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #67 on: 02/02/18, 10:19 AM »

is the following sentence something you were told by the WSDOT or something you made up.

"Unfortunately, they also see people parking on or near the side of the highway as a threat to this mission."

Conrad states clearly "here's our understanding of the situation," making it obvious that he is relaying an impression he got from his phone conversation. I'm happy to have this information even if it is secondhand and even if you haven't endorsed his source. If you have a better source at WSDOT that can give a more definitive, please check with them and relay back here what you find.

I take issue with the confrontational tone you've taken with CBA. We all understand that you harbor animosity, but your criticisms of CBA are not relevant  to this discussion. At the very least you should acknowledge that Conrad's call to WSDOT was a timely gesture to address a long-standing conflict that involves almost exclusively private skiers.
Logged
Micah
Administrator
Offline

Posts: 162


Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #68 on: 02/02/18, 09:33 PM »

You can read the terms of use here. It is not OK to imply you are a serial killer. Likewise, it is not OK for you to use TAY as a forum to repeatedly impugn folks that have somehow crossed you. I appreciate your anti-commericalisim message (sincerely). I don't appreciate your personal attacks. Charles created TAY as a community, and your strident behavior is harshing our mellow. Please chill out.
Logged
BCSchonwald
5Member
Offline

Posts: 38


Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #69 on: 02/03/18, 06:56 PM »

 
Sometimes timely jesters are just that. Especially when it involves a political organization that springs forth from commercial backing with a prime interest in public land.
Most Jesters have poor timing so they are just that.

I've asked for transparency and those transparency questions have not been answered and that makes me suspect. Yeah maybe I was a bit rude about it but I respond emotionally. It's that passion that drives my reason.

 One thing that I've tried to convey to Backcountry skiers who occupy this  site, is that they are free to contact and pursue public Authority on issues that directly affect them.

I do get it. You're trying to run a business here and my constant questioning of commercial interest in public land maybe upsetting some of your sponsorship, possibly including those who directly employ  members of the CBA.

 So you'll have to excuse me if I think there needs to be one place on this planet ( Nature's natural wonders) where I can get away from the commercial interest agenda.


My question with your issue with commercial interest on public lands is what about all the people that willing seek out these businesses for their services to access nature? Are they driven by commercial interest? What drives them to seek guidance? How will they find the services to access these natural landscapes safely if no one provides what they need or are willing to pay for?

Your assault on the CBA for being a tool for guide services needs facts, seems like a feeling and not actual data.

Also since when is a non-profit a business? Again needs facts to substantiate this claim.

Is transparency a judgement call based on your satisfaction with the answer or just the exchange of information? How will we know when your level of transparency is achieved?
Logged
Jim Oker
Moderator
Offline

Posts: 1552


Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #70 on: 02/05/18, 12:05 AM »

Curious if any of the CBA folks, or anyone else for  that matter,  has thoughts  with respect  to the goals I tried to reverse engineer out of what I've read from CBA so far (i.e. do they seem right, is something missing,  would you  replace any  or all of them...?). Call  it  transparency if you like, but whatever you  call  it, having clarity on goals may help enlist energy and maybe even $ from the community. Not having them may breed one or another type of lack of trust (whether about intentions or about competency to choose projects well, or about likelihood of project choices aligning sufficiently with one's own hopes and  goals). Trust,  particularly among people who  don't know each other,  is typically earned  through good communication and some sense of being  "in  it for the same things."
Logged
Charlie Hagedorn
Member
Offline

Posts: 1887


WWW
Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #71 on: 02/05/18, 07:19 AM »

My impression is that CBA is doing a lot of the right things. It's hard to get an organization off the ground, but every step taken has been in a positive direction.

I'll be excited to chip in when the Donate link goes live, and excited to chip in again when the bylaws and finances are public.
Logged

Jim Oker
Moderator
Offline

Posts: 1552


Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #72 on: 02/05/18, 09:14 AM »

To be clear, I agree with everything Charlie wrote in the first paragraph of that last post.

And I might even make this group  a target  for a slice of my yearly donations, as I've done for over two  decades running with a  local hiking access oriented non-profit organization (which  is the  subject of ongoing attacks on both intentions and results from  some  members of the hiking community - I think this  is inevitable for such  a group). But frankly here I differ from Charlie - I won't do so before I see some effort to better clarify goals and non-goals for their project work. And I honestly  don't believe it would be heavy lifting or very time consuming. I  think that  in well  under a  half hour one or more of them could  take a very good stab at that right now (I bet it will take less time than  making that donation  link go live  Wink ). If the group is not clear enough on their goals now to do it in ten minutes, the extra twenty (or so) would  be time well  spent for  all of them, even for the benefit of their own efforts (aside from  engaging folks  like me). For my part, based on having watched many group efforts either succeed or fail,  I see this  as an important piece of foundational  work that would  build my confidence that this group has a shot at using my $ well, and  in ways  that I'd like to  see it used.  And depending  on the need (which would of course also have  to be  clearly  articulated), I might also  be game to kick in  time.

I'm willing to put my time where  my typing fingers are - if you want some help articulating your goals, I'd be up for coming to  meet with your crew  to facilitate a discussion with the aim of producing such a list  to  be used internally and shared  publicly.  FWIW I have been fairly well  paid for doing such work (among other  things), and have  also very recently helped to guide such a process as a member of a volunteer board of an "adventure education" non-profit which just went through a periodic revision and renewal of its overall  strategy  (this non-profit company has been a leader in "adventure-based learning" for over 40 years and understands how important this foundational effort  is). If you have any interest, PM me and we can discuss  how long a meeting  might be worthwhile toward this end.
« Last Edit: 02/05/18, 10:51 AM by Jim Oker » Logged
CBAlliance
5Member
Offline

Posts: 29


WWW
Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #73 on: 02/05/18, 04:37 PM »

To be clear, I agree with everything Charlie wrote in the first paragraph of that last post.

And I might even make this group  a target  for a slice of my yearly donations, as I've done for over two  decades running with a  local hiking access oriented non-profit organization (which  is the  subject of ongoing attacks on both intentions and results from  some  members of the hiking community - I think this  is inevitable for such  a group). But frankly here I differ from Charlie - I won't do so before I see some effort to better clarify goals and non-goals for their project work. And I honestly  don't believe it would be heavy lifting or very time consuming. I  think that  in well  under a  half hour one or more of them could  take a very good stab at that right now (I bet it will take less time than  making that donation  link go live  Wink ). If the group is not clear enough on their goals now to do it in ten minutes, the extra twenty (or so) would  be time well  spent for  all of them, even for the benefit of their own efforts (aside from  engaging folks  like me). For my part, based on having watched many group efforts either succeed or fail,  I see this  as an important piece of foundational  work that would  build my confidence that this group has a shot at using my $ well, and  in ways  that I'd like to  see it used.  And depending  on the need (which would of course also have  to be  clearly  articulated), I might also  be game to kick in  time.

I'm willing to put my time where  my typing fingers are - if you want some help articulating your goals, I'd be up for coming to  meet with your crew  to facilitate a discussion with the aim of producing such a list  to  be used internally and shared  publicly.  FWIW I have been fairly well  paid for doing such work (among other  things), and have  also very recently helped to guide such a process as a member of a volunteer board of an "adventure education" non-profit which just went through a periodic revision and renewal of its overall  strategy  (this non-profit company has been a leader in "adventure-based learning" for over 40 years and understands how important this foundational effort  is). If you have any interest, PM me and we can discuss  how long a meeting  might be worthwhile toward this end.


Jim,

I think we would have some interest in this but I also think we are talking past each other a little bit, which is easy to do over the internet. You might want to have a look at our "projects" page here, which I think pretty clearly states the goals we have. I'll quote here for the click-averse:

STEP 1: improve the user experience at heavily trafficked backcountry access points.
-Encourage mutual respect and community by promoting some basic backcountry etiquette provisions.
-Maintain a good relationship with resorts, and make the business case for uphill travelers using resort resources.
-Limit the number of cars that take up resort parking, and advocate for and expand carpooling options.
-Help shape resort infrastructure to limit user conflict.

STEP 2: distribute the impact of backcountry users to different areas.
-Plow additional trailheads and roads.
-Improve community knowledge about what access points are available and what resources they can use to explore new areas.
-Present a united political voice to government agencies during planning processes.

Perhaps this page should be re-labeled, as I see the distinction you are making between projects and goals. Goals attempt to complete the mission, projects attempt to complete the goals. I appreciate the examples you've provided above of some more specific goals relating to the Kendall plowing project. I would be curious if you have some examples of documented goals from other organizations such as the WTA (or similar) that you could share. It would likely be helpful.

Regarding funding, which sort of ties in to all this: There's a reason we aren't asking for money.
Basically, we have a cart and horse problem. We are trying to get a sense of where the horse will go before we build the cart too elaborately. You all are understandably trying to decide how the cart looks and who is driving it before you hitch your horse up.  The transition out of this initial size-up is sort of happening right now, but it will continue to be messy as we depend on tenuous new relationships and ever-limited resources. We don't want to ask people for funding without projects that have more clearly defined budgets, outcomes, and abilities to meet our stated goals. That IS the reason the funding link isn't live yet. We get the point of doing the background work before we ask people to plunk down the money.

We also get that trust is a big thing in asking for community effort. Our bylaws, articles of incorporation, certificate of incorporation, and fiscal sponsor agreement with WWA are all now published on our website at https://www.cascadebackcountryalliance.org/governance. I'd like to note that this is pretty far beyond what you get with most other nonprofits, including the WCC, WTA, and NWAC.

Once we have a bank account (probably soon), we will start publishing fiscal information. Obviously we currently have a $0 balance.

Regarding your skepticism of our first goal: I don't think your heavily trafficked roads analogy is accurate. The solution to too many cars is fewer cars: better public transportation, carpooling incentives, and infrastructure alternatives. The solution to too many skiers isn't fewer skiers. We can't stop em. It's already an exorbitantly expensive niche sport. And yet the masses show up. We also can't just close i-90. It's a desirable transportation corridor. Similarly, I like skiing in the passes. The terrain is good, the snow is good- I don't think people want to lose that access even if they are willing to look for solitude elsewhere. So yes, we have to make it easier for people to go to different places- but we aren't going to hope that it's the stick of restricted access that drives them there.
Logged

cascadebackcountryalliance.org
Charlie Hagedorn
Member
Offline

Posts: 1887


WWW
Re: Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance
« Reply #74 on: 02/05/18, 07:29 PM »

We also get that trust is a big thing in asking for community effort. Our bylaws, articles of incorporation, certificate of incorporation, and fiscal sponsor agreement with WWA are all now published on our website at https://www.cascadebackcountryalliance.org/governance. I'd like to note that this is pretty far beyond what you get with most other nonprofits, including the WCC, WTA, and NWAC.

Awesome -- thank you! Perhaps-important PM to follow.
Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All | Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Login with username, password and session length

Thank you to our sponsors!
click to visit our sponsor: Feathered Friends
Feathered Friends
click to visit our sponsor: Marmot Mountain Works
Marmot Mountain Works
click to visit our sponsor: Second Ascent
Second Ascent
click to visit our sponsor: American Alpine Institute
American Alpine Institute
click to visit our sponsor: Pro Guiding Service
Pro Guiding Service
Contact turns-all-year.com

Turns All Year Trip Reports ©2001-2010 Turns All Year LLC. All Rights Reserved

The opinions expressed in posts are those of the poster and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Trip Reports administrators or Turns All Year LLC


Turns All Year Trip Reports | Powered by SMF 1.0.6.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.