Backcountry access from WA ski areas

What are your opinions on how backcountry access is managed in Washington? It seems to vary a bit from area to area, but the gate system so prevalent in other states does not seem to be used by anyone here. I ask because it has been frustrating watching the Alpental patrol try to get the upper and lower BC traverses open this season. The main issue seems to be the fact that they are attempting to claim a large chunk of essentially uncontrolled terrain as part of the ski area, and as such only open it when they feel comfortable letting people with essentially no avalanche preparedness ski out there. <br><br>Wouldn't it be better if the gates were treated as true backcountry access points and were open all the time? If that were the case, much of the current danger in the Alpental BC would be less severe due to increased skier traffic earlier in the season. A system like this also seems, to me, to encourage the skiing public to honor ropelines and be more conscious of the inherent dangers once they are beyond them. Of course, signage at these gates would have to make it very clear to the skier that they are in fact leaving the ski area and entering uncontrolled avalanche terrain ... a fact that most Alpental skiers do not seem to acknowledge with the current system. <br><br>The arguement against this is that many unprepared and/or ignorant skiers will pass through the gates anyway, and it will be up to the Alpental patrol to come get them. That may be true, but if Alpental treated what they currently call the backcountry as true backcountry I think the overall number of skiers out there would be reduced and those that do venture into that terrain would be more prepared and able to perform self-rescue and avoid incidents to begin with. <br><br>There will always be a few idiots ignoring the risks, whether the area is open or not. On Sunday, when avalanche danger in the backcountry was posted by NWAC as high potentially going to extreme, there were many tracks crossing the ropeline to the upper backcountry, I highly doubt a majority of those tracks were made by experienced backcountry travellers. Odds are none of these people even knew what the current danger rating was, as Alpental does not post it. IMO, this sort of behaviour would be discouraged by an open gate system with warnings (at the very least, the current NWAC forecast) that discourage the unprepared from passing through.

while Crystal and Alpy have the gate accessed semi-backcountry where bc equipment and partners are only a suggestion, doesn't Baker have a true backcountry where once you leave the gate for the hemispheres or shuksan arm you are entirely out of the resort?  And at Baker you have to be carrying the standard bc gear to go out the gate.<br><br>...I guess baker does bomb the hemispheres, but the can't do any avy control on the arm, right?<br><br>I certainly wouldn't mind if the Alpental backcountry was treated as true backcountry and it was left to the individual whether to go or not.  Still possible to ski all that stuff out there, but you just gotta access it on your own from Source Lake. My guess would be that Booth Creek wants to keep Alpental's current backcountry policy as-is because although it limits the number of days it can be accessed, once it is open it is a much bigger draw for skiers because anyone can head out there, not just those who own all the bc gear (and hopefully have some avy education).

white pass has no control and offers a cheap $10 one ride lift ticket for bc skiers wishing to use the chair to get to the top of pigtail peak.

Mission Ridge and Steven's have signs about no avalanche control out of bounds and rescue (when availible) being peformed by the Sheriff's department at a $1000 minumum charge.<br><br>Mission's web site reciently said this: <br><br>Comments:<br>Extreme avalanche danger today. Windy Ridge, Bowl 4 and Microwave will not be open today. Stay in bounds.

Alpental "backcountry" lies within the resort permit area. over the years it has been regarded more as unmanged ski trails then BC like at Baker. If you use the lifts you are expected to abide by the rules that come with using the terraian within the permit boundry. Its just my opinion but if skiers get uppity because they want to ride the lifts to access BC, to bad there is millions of acres in the Cascades away from the resorts were the decisions you make affect you, not the resorts lawyers, patrollers, otheer customers, etc...

They are of course perfectly within their rights to do that, I just like the way other resorts manage boundaries better. As a customer who likes to use lifts to access the backcountry (legally), this fact may affect where I spend my ski time and money in the future. I can understand that the fact that skiers have to cross uncontrolled terrain within the SUP to access the real backcountry is an obstacle to that, but there must be some way to compromise. Maybe when the International lift gets built this issue will go away. <br><br>They could put a real BC gate above Edelweiss Bowl, that's usually open right to, or very close to, the SUP boundary... sure it would put you into Denny Creek drainage but at least that would give BC users some kind of access. I haven't been over that ridge though, so I cant say whether this would be worth it.<br><br>