March 16th, 2020 ALPENTAL Uphill Travel

Sorry, still a bit of a neophyte - I should have started a new thread here
We are getting a bunch of questions already about uphill travel policy during this "intermission" in our season. Snow Safety, Maintenance, and hill crews have all agreed that we will continue status quo for at least this week. That means it gets even better at West, Central and East because we won't have groomers and winch lines to watch out for. At Alpental, we will try and take advantage of some daylight this week and work on just those things. We have some new winch infrastructure that hasn't been implemented yet and needs both more work and more testing. We also have heavy equipment to move both up and down the slopes and that can only be done with winches. So we will leave Alpental closed this week to uphill travel while the resort is shut down and make a commitment to you to do this week-by-week. I anticipate one to two weeks and we will either open back up for some lift-served laps, or conversely, try to increase public access for you in some way. Thanks for your support -Gib/

Great update Gib, thanks.

Gib , thank you for all your hard work , Always .

That means it gets even better at West, Central and East because we won't have groomers and winch lines to watch out for.

 

That's not a clear answer to me. So, are we allowed to skin inbounds at west, central, and hyack?

At Alpental, snip,...  So we will leave Alpental closed this week to uphill travel while the resort is shut down and make a commitment to you to do this week-by-week.  I anticipate one to two weeks and we will either open back up for some lift-served laps, or conversely, try to increase public access for you in some way.  Thanks for your support -Gib/

thanks for the heads up on alpental, Gib.

************************
So, to update the answer to my own question because Gib's comment didn't address the status of the hyack, central, and west, I went an took a look at the Summit website which said:


MARCH 15, 2020 | 2:45PM
Alpental Restriction Status

Uphill travel restrictions REMAIN ACTIVE. These restrictions will remain in place through at least Friday, March 20, 2020. We will reevalutate these restrictions at that time. Uphill travel is not allowed within the Alpental permit area when the mountain is closed. Uphill travel at Alpental is still strictly prohibited until stated otherwise. Uphill travel at Summit West, Summit Central, and Summit East is permitted. Scroll down for more detail about restrictions.

I can't imagine parking in any of those lots would be a problem

I apologize that we are still day to day.  Suffice it to say that the current COVID situation has the possibility of more seasonal operations changing almost hourly.  This week we were unable to get all the prep work done for our winch missions so we worked on the hill itself.  Thanks for giving us the ability to do so.  That being said we need another week to move generators, bulldozers and winches around on the mountain at Alpental.  We need to continue with winter rules in effect for the next week which means no uphill at Alpental through at least Friday the 27th of March.  The Forest Service has also been looking at our uphill activities as possibly "congregating" so please keep travel to small parties and good spacing at East, Central, and West.  If we are good stewards I think they will let us continue the outdoor activities.  Thanks for your understanding. - Gib

Sorry if the answer wasn't clear above. Yes to inbounds at West, Central, and East - please just watch for workers. We still have snowcats out and about, and the lifts are still starting and stopping without notice so please stay away from facilities. Thx

Thanks for the ongoing updates. Good luck with the work in the week ahead. We had great fun at Hyak Tuesday and West today. And though we met several nice folks we didn't know before (along with a few old friends), everyone was spaced quite far, except at points like tops of climbs where we got close enough to talk but WELL over the 6 foot mandate. Much safer than getting gas or buying toilet paper

We changed out the signs today and updated the websites.  Uphill at Alpental is now allowed. Our operating season for 2019-2020 has officially ended with our on-hill work this week.  Thank you to everyone who supported those efforts.  Please remember - winter is not over.  With no avalanche hazard reduction being done, 6 inches of new snow and a bit of wind can create a significant hazard quite quickly. We still have a very substantial snowpack and recent springs have been quite active.  We always want to support the touring community, but we are also the ones who get the call when things go wrong. Please be conservative and be careful out there -Thanks again for the ongoing support / Gib

Oh the irony. The day uphill travel restrictions are lifted is the day the USFS clamps down on access. From what I've seen, effective 12:01am Sat. 3/27, all trailheads, campgrounds and day-use areas on USFS land in the state of Washington are temporarily closed until further notice or Sept. 30th, whichever comes first :'(

Oh the irony. The day uphill travel restrictions are lifted is the day the USFS clamps down on access. From what I've seen, effective 12:01am Sat. 3/27, all trailheads, campgrounds and day-use areas on USFS land in the state of Washington are temporarily closed until further notice or Sept. 30th, whichever comes first :'(

While ski areas are not specifically mentioned in the announcement, I'm guessing it's fair to assume they would classify as either day use areas or trailheads?

I'm not sure what the fuss is about. The governor's order as of last Monday was that you can't drive there anyway. No excuses; doesn't matter how much you need it, want it, crave it, or find it essential to your personal mental health. So unless you happen to live within walking or biking distance of Alpental, you cannot legally get there.

I am aware that people are breaking the rules all day long. I see them driving to various recreational venues here, too. I'm not making a case on moral grounds; my concern is that breaking the rules--easily justified by anyone determined to ski--will provoke even more draconian controls on us all. In fact, the governor's announcement last Monday followed close on the heels of his people consulting with locals around the state about the degree of compliance (or lack thereof) with the existing voluntary guidelines that they observed locally.

quickly second the previous post, but only in the interest of clarification. I read the entire order, and there's nothing in it that say you can't travel by car to "engage in outdoor exercise." Markharf I'd appreciate if you cold share where you found the information that you can't drive to exercise outside.

From the perspective of common sense, no one is going to get coronavirus skinning around a ski area if they drive alone and maintain space from other users. Not gonna happen. I suppose you might need to stop for gas and touch a gas pump. I'd pack my own food for sure.

If bc skiing is enough of a contagion concern to be banned, then all take out food should for sure be immediately banned: it's not necessary, and carries probably 1000 times the transmission risk of skiing up a hill or walking in the woods. It's more dangerous than the supermarket because to survive on takeout you need ~10x exposures compared to loading up at the supermarket.

We still apparently need unlimited burritos and french fries, but moving around in nature is so dangerous and extraneous? hmmm.

I'd hate though to endanger first-responders. In thousands of trips to the wood, I've never needed help. The risk of skiing though certainly is bigger than walking the dog around the block. Is it really that much of a concern? If so then so be it, the State can lock me up inside for the rest of the year I guess ....

I guess I'm reading the order differently from some of you, i.e., you can drive wherever you need to go for certain specified purposes (essential occupations, medical care, food, etc.) and can walk or ride a bike for recreation. It seems pretty clear to me that the governor didn't intend to tell us that we can drive wherever we want in order to ski, bike, swim, hike, climb, windsurf, paraglide, or pursue [inserrt your favorite form of recreation here].

But apparently that's not as clear to others as it seemed to me. I suppose that if enough people drive to and from their favored recreational sites, the order will eventually be clarified--I'm guessing in the direction of more restrictions, not less.

I've been reading about lockdowns which allow walking or bike riding within a kilometer or two of home. That doesn't sound like much fun to me. Other places (in Europe, so far) allow people out of their homes on foot only if they're carrying affidavits--and sometimes evidence--that they're buying food or medicine. Think that won't happen here? Hell, I never thought things would go as far as they already have, here in the land of the free.

My main interest here isn't to stake out some sort of high moral ground; I'm really mainly interested in forestalling more restrictions. There are only a few places locally where trails of any sort are still open, and I'd like them to stay that way. People are angry, and one angry passerby blaming all those carefree recreationalists for his/her lost job or dead grandma can create a lot of trouble for the rest of us.

I doubt I'm going to convince anyone to see this differently. That's ok. I don't mind eating an appropriate serving of crow if it turns out I'm wrong, either. We'll see.

Mark

It's called a stay-at-home order.

If you listened to the governor's speech when the order was issued, it was clear (to me at least) that for essential exercise he meant walks, bike rides, etc, near home. Also, it's not just Washington:

How Skiing Through a Pandemic Can Create a Community Crisis

www.nytimes.com/2020/03/29/sports/skiing...alanche-warning.html

quote:

"It is not a competition to see what you can get away with," said Polis, who had ordered the resorts to close on March 15.

"If you need to recreate and you love our outdoors," he added, "do it in communities close to your home. This pandemic is not a vacation. It's not the time to drive two or three hours from Denver to mountain communities, many of which are reeling from the crisis."

With all due respect Lowell it is not well written policy and is clear as mud. Seattle has world class skiing at about an hour's distance or less. Not the 2 and 3 hour I70 bandwagon that CO deals with. It is not explicitly stated and absolutely left up to interpretation, demonstrated here.

Those remarks are that of Polis and not Inslee. It was a remark in passing offering guidance only but is questionable how well it applies in the context of Washington State. "Close to home" can be anything around here. There is no reason to get frustrated at folk who interpret this differently.

As a personal opinion, if you are on a tour, cause a scene, and place strain on our SAR and community medical teams you are not acting in the best interest of your community.

Frank:
Well said.

On principle I agree with all of this but this is not what we are seeing practically. People aren't going in small groups, skiing safe, terrain, in isolated private areas.

People are congregating in mass on top of red mountain, skiing on top of each other. People are aggregating at destination and ski objectives. People are skinning up in mass on Sessel. Summit west and lot 4 parking lots full on weekends where resorts aren't running. I saw 6 people skinning up in the rain on Sessel last saturday via webcam.

Judgement, mountain etiquette, and actual covid concerns aside, local and state governments see this activity and feel pressured to further lock things down. So while I agree with everything you said on principle I get where Lowell is coming from as well. The majority of people going up there are skiing the same objective, with moderate to large group size. A smaller but growing majority are getting into the BC for the first time.

My fear is the "Scene" will pressure policy makers to lock things down further. The first major SAR incident we have in WA this year may very well end skiing all togehter in this state.

Exactly. Regardless of one's interpretation of the governor's "Stay At Home" orders, I believe we are on the verge of a far more severe shutdown. Personally, I'd prefer not to contribute to that.  In fact, I'd prefer that the rest of you not contribute as well.

I'd even prefer a total, explicit, enforced shutdown of all driving to outdoor recreation to what I fear is coming--a total, explicit, enforced shut down of recreation itself. In Bellingham, Galbraith and the city parks are still open; state parks are closed but as far as I know still allowing use of trails but not facilities; on DNR land even use of trails is forbidden. This is just a beginning. In Chamonix (so I read), you can still take a walk or bike ride, but only within a kilometer of home--backed up by police enforcement and requiring written statement of intention, plus proof.

I'm not hearing anyone changing their minds about this based on arguments here and elsewhere on the web, although I hope I'm wrong about that. I do think it's worth listening in on other discussions, including the ones going on among people not so invested in maintaining access to outdoor recreation. Some of those people are the ones making policy--now and for the future--and they're not really listening to all the protestations of positive intent or self-serving analyses of the governor's week-old orders. They're just looking for reasons (call them "excuses") to prevent us from leaving our living rooms.

Once again, I'll be glad to be wrong about any or all of the above.

Mark

Exactly. Regardless of one's interpretation of the governor's "Stay At Home" orders, I believe we are on the verge of a far more severe shutdown. Personally, I'd prefer not to contribute to that.  In fact, I'd prefer that the rest of you not contribute as well.

So no one should do anything in anticipation that the State might order everyone to do nothing if someone does something?

I'm personally uncomfortable thinking about my relationship with the State in those child-parent dynamics ("dad didn't say we couldn't go in the pool, but if we go in the pool he might tell us we can't go in the pool for a month ...").

I prefer to see the State's communications as legal language.  And then as a private citizen I choose to behave safely and pro-socially inside of those legal limits.  It seems to me that one can ski under one's own power in ways that don't increase the chances of disease transmission, and that minimize risk of personal injury.

Supermarkets and buses are necessary, so not good comparisons.  But take out food isn't banned, is allowed by the State, and is an enormous infection risk compared to parking on the side of the highway and skinning up a hill.

And the State explicitly says riding a bike is okay.  I'll bet the risk of doing that in the city of Seattle is comparable to, or maybe worse than, "poaching" some avy-safe blue runs.

Anyway, I choose to live my life in ways that expects the State to be measured and reasonable in relation to my freedoms.  I won't live in a way that anticipates overreach and irrationality.  Often that's what they do, but I won't tacitly validate it.  If they haven't banned skiing I'm gonna ski, and no one's gonna get sick because of it.

I now sleep on the downstairs couch every night because of the potential of falling when I climb the very steep stairs to my bedroom in my 100 year old house.  I know that climbing those stairs potentially endangers both emergency responders and health care workers, so instead I toss and turn all night then wake up feeling like $hit. (yes, sarcasm)

I prefer the rest of you not use the stairs in your house either and sleep on your downstairs couches. It's just not right to risk the lives of others with your irresponsible behavor. 

No seriously,  the "State" isn't checking webcams to see whether there are more than 8 skiers on Summit West.  They are looking at the numbers of people testing positive for CoV, entering the hospital system, and dying.  Skiers will not change those numbers one iota, even if 50 of them will park in the Alpy parking lot on Saturday, provided they comply with the distancing rules.   If the numbers go up, the State will tighten the screws.  If they go down... Saying "barking at the wrong tree" comes to mind when I read this.

well there is this -

In partnership and alignment with the United States Forest Service and its closure of developed recreational day-use areas, all terrain within The Summit's permit area is now closed. This closure applies to all Summit base areas and all types of recreational access, including but not limited to; ski touring, skiing, snowboarding, hiking, snow play, and sledding.

Been thinking that my streak may come to an end in April given the current restrictions and general ethos.

Hoping for month 1 in...May? June?

I am thinking more likely the end of June - perhaps near summer solstice.

Hmm, I suppose that would be a worthy solstice celebration at Silver.

Hoping for a miracle in April:

komonews.com/archive/number-of-march--ap...currences-in-seattle

I just drove by the local golf course and golfers were golfing away. The parking lot had lots of cars in it. I heard they have a one person per cart rule. So, I can't drive up to a parking lot in the forest, alone in my car, and my partner alone in his car, and go wandering off into the backcountry...but, we can go golfing in town. Does this make sense?

I just drove by the local golf course and golfers were golfing away. The parking lot had lots of cars in it. I heard they have a one person per cart rule. So, I can't drive up to a parking lot in the forest, alone in my car, and my partner alone in his car, and go wandering off into the backcountry...but, we can go golfing in town. Does this make sense?

Maybe it's easier to make sure people are social distancing on a golf course and violations of social distancing can more easily be reported rather than if say 100 people drive separately to a trail head but then there is little control of what people may do 5, 10, or 15 plus miles into the wilderness. I guess they figure it's safer to just close all the national forests, than risk people flocking to the trail heads and risk people coming into close contact or violating social distancing guidelines. I would see this as a great opportunity to hire those who are out of work and give them jobs as park rangers making sure people are abiding by the rules rather than just closing all the forests.

Private vs. public

Is it just me or are the same heuristics that get people killed in avalanches emerging in some posts in this thread?

Looks like a lot of confirmation bias and "expert halo" thinking.

"I really want to go skiing" -- therefore my bias is that it should be OK within the bounds of the Governor's edict and the risks to myself and others.

"I'm smarter/better informed/more rational than other people and better able to gauge the risks to myself and to others" -- therefore no prob for me to go skiing because my expert status privileges me to live outside the constraints that apply to others.

I have removed my previous posts in this thread, not because the info I shared is inaccurate, but out of fear that the public-discussion alone could be to the detriment of those who are still taking advantage of what (legal) outdoor rec opportunities we still have.
Stay at home if that's the responsible decision for yourself. For others that will get what they need from nature during these stressful times.. cheers.