Jackson Hole Backcountry Policy Agreement

I would like to know more about the agreement struck with the Forest Service that permanently opened the backcountry gates at Jackson Hole. I'm sure it is public disclosure-But any ideas of who to talk to or find info??<br>I was reading an article in Powder Mag about this and it is identical to the case Crystal Mtn has.<br>Here is an exerpt from the JH Patrol Director on page 76 Nov-04 edition Powder Mag article, " It was not Ski Corp. (Jackson Hole) policy that we monitor the boundaries. It was Forest Service policy. In order for us to maintain our special-use permit, we had to go out and patrol the boundaries and keep people inside. And it was something that most of us hated to do..."<br>The policing eventually overshadowed the patrol's mission of mountain safety and an agreement was struck and the gates opened.<br><br>Any suggestions?? One is the Patrol Director. Others??<br>Thanks-JDB

Joedabaker- I beleive that the open boundary policy is a relative term in Jackson just as it is here in utah at many resorts.  first, you can only enter the backcountry though specific gates. second, these gates are often closed when there is a high avy danger. third, certain backcountry gates may be inaccessable due to terrain closures. Opening a boundary is a tough issue for a resort in the U.S. because of liability and the resort will do all it can to not have to worry about the issue.  In utah resorts will on occasion control backcounrty areas right out side of backcountry gates as a fail safe. In a perfect world we wouldnt have to worry about boundaries as residents have the right to use adjecent forest service lands. Unfortunataly we live in a sue happy and often ignorant society.

Actually, I believe the policy in Jackson allows for the access gates to be left open. Yes there are specific access points when leaving the ski area boundary, but the point of the policy is that the ski patrol no longer hast to monitor those gates, they are always open.<br>Crystal Mt. on the other hand opens and closes their access gates to N and S backcountry. Although credit to the CM Ski Patrol for nearly always having them open.

Good Point TeleRoss-That Crystal nearly always has gates open. I was refering to the precedence set by Jackson Hole to open backcountry gates bordering USFS land and National Parks. MRNP and the Forest service are forcing Crystal to close access to MRNP and the FS land for ticketed skiers. There was always an open gate policy before to access these public lands (avy danger or not-at your own risk), but Crystal got shafted by the Park service and Forest Service to close access to MRNP from the ski area or lose their Special-use permit. <br>Thanks for letting me clarify-<br>Joe

Perhaps I can put in my ten cents. I worked as the Ski Patrol Dispatcher at Jackson Hole Mountain Resort in the winter of 1999-2000, the first season the gates were opened and the rope "dropped."<br><br>Today, you can exit through one of a number of gates at any time, without supervision. Ski patrol posts the current avalache conditions and reports at each gate each morning, and there are a host of warning signs recommending training and equipment. If they are doing any avalanche control work that may endanger someone using one the gates (this can happen along the southern boundary), then they post a patroller at the gates and common ducks to block traffic until control work is over. But anyone can leave, and anyone who chooses to duck a boundary rope (which still exists) is no longer pursued. The Ski Patrol ball caps from that season puts it best, "You're on your own."<br><br>Prior to that year, the Forest Service and the Park Service (Jackson Hole's north boundary is Grand Teton National Park's as well), held the resort responsible for any skiers that accessed the BC from the ski resort. Hence the strict pursuits of persons ducking the rope, checking out with ski patrol, or closing gates in anything other than mild conditions.<br><br>After a series of meetings between the Forest Service, Park Service, Jackson Hole Mountian Resort, and Sheriff's Search and Rescue, the parties decided upon this new policy. That first season, at a public announcement meeting of the new policy, the Forest Service representative even stated, for the record, that they were willing to accept an increase in accidents because of this new policy. This marked a new era of responsiblity handed back to the skier. <br><br>Some ski areas can't do this - Bridger Bowl comes to mind - because they're surrounded by private property.<br>And areas marked closed within the resort are still closed - duck the rope there and you will get busted hard.

mtnfreak-Thanks for taking your time to help put some things at Jackson into perspective. I have appealed the MRNP and Forest Services decision to close the boundary at Crystal Mountain. Any info reguarding those Jackson meetings is vital to our success to keeping access to public land in the decision of the public. Not an abitrary closure decision waged by the NPS and FS using a patsy like Crystal to be the thugs to carry out the NPS and FS dirty work. <br>Once a closure is in effect it is more difficult to regain access in the future. Once a closure process is established by the NP and FS more public land access could potentially close in the future. Think about what borders Mt. Baker ski resort. Maybe I am crazy, but can anyone see a decision like the closure of access to the National Park and Forest Service land at Crystal potentially set motion for future boudary closures at Baker?