MRNP fees???

Can anyone tell me what it costs (besides park entry fee) to do a day trip for turns on a snow field or glacier in MRNP.  Am I a "climber" if I venture onto, say, the Frying Pan Gl., or just a day hiker?  Is this a gray area as far as permits goes...any suggestions for minimizing costs...going "under the radar", etc.?  Also, anyone up for joining me up there this weekend (Aug. 19-21) for some turns?

Thanks, Bill Kent

Bill - I don't know anyone that pays climbing fees to go ski on a glacier in MRNP (unless you're skiing off the summit) and I have never heard of any of the climbing rangers ticketing anyone for not having "climbing permits" when skiing on the lower glaciers. It may be a different story though, if you are heading out above high camp (mainly from Muir or Sherman) with skis. I could see the climbing rangers asking to see your climbing permit for such activities.

So I believe most skiers (and maybe even climbing rangers) would tell you to just pay your entrance fees and go ski (as long as you're not climbing above the high camps).

Have a great time and be careful on the glaciers. Somthing my pop used to tell me all the time could easily apply to glaciers as well:
"That's no place to run around barefoot".

Thanks for the info, Ron. After seeing everyone's great photos and TR's, I've gotta get over there! All those fees seemed excessive for just a jaunt up onto the snow. As far as barefoot goes, I'll make sure that I wear my 3-pin "teleTevas" when I'm skiing!!!
Thanks again, Bill

RonJ is right, Bill, a climbing permit is only required to go "above" high camps (ie Shurman or Muir, roughly 10,000 ft) - all you need to ski the lower glaciers is to pay your park entrance fee or have an annual pass (usually the favored TAY solution).

Just to stir somethiing up ... the actual letter of the law could be interpreted to be more restrictive ... but of course, I am neither "hiking" nor "climbing" on the "glaciers". I am skiing ... so there 
You'd need a definition of "glacier" to enforce this anyways. Reductio ad absurdum - is someone going to come helicoptering out of the sky to give me a ticket for setting foot on the Williwakas "Glacier" ? Moreover, no similar restrictions on glacier travel exist in any other lower-48 NPS unit or federal lands that I know of, so I really wonder what they are thinking even having that in print.

Just to stir somethiing up ... the actual letter of the law could be interpreted to be more restrictive ... but of course, I am neither "hiking" nor "climbing" on the "glaciers". I am skiing ... so there 
You'd need a definition of "glacier" to enforce this anyways. Reductio ad absurdum - is someone going to come helicoptering out of the sky to give me a ticket for setting foot on the Williwakas "Glacier" ? Moreover, no similar restrictions on glacier travel exist in any other lower-48 NPS unit or federal lands that I know of, so I really wonder what they are thinking even having that in print.

Thus my confusion...the difference between "de jure" and "de facto" practices in MRNP.  Although I'm not opposed to bending the rules (especially when they're absurd or excessive) I wanted to make sure that I don't run afoul of the Feds.  Also, keeping in the spirit of the rules, which is to keep as safe as possible when in the mountains.   I will make sure that I am firmly "anchored" to the "glacier" and "roped" to those in my party....if only metaphorically.