NWAC Survey What is Important to you?

So, after the banter, I wanted to ask if there are any possibilities of charging for a small warning/caution/info tag on clothing at REI? Backpacker's Supply? Feathered Friends? Martin Volken's place? Sports Authority? Since NWAC does the report, I would think that it would be come an inseperable accessory to gear sold that someone might take in the bc. Honestly, I bet you could almost pass it as legislature in WA.

There may also be the potential for litigation from the knuckleheads that buy the gear and blame NWAC that their dog got killed in an avy.
Another thought are sales like the green tags that have been promoted at checkstands, but as a consumer I get tired of people hawking stuff to me at the register.

I think it is best to keep lawmakers from making another law, it hurts small business. And it is just another reason for a lobbyist to shine a deal that gets ugly later with some person who has controlling interests.

I still like the tag idea, marketing is where it is at. Only if people weren't so sue happy.

Scotsman,
The operating budget for NWAC is detailed in their annual report which can be found here ( www.nwac.us/media.htm ). By the way, this past seasons annual report has just been released and would I recommend that anyone interested in avalanches and snow pack info check it out (snow geeks rejoice!).

Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to crunch the numbers (when I get a chance I will do so), but, I would like to add this, our long term goal is not to make up for any financial shortfalls that may arise in the next couple of years, rather it is to develop a consistent revenue stream that would insure the long term operations of NWAC. Given the existing environment in both the state and federal government, there are no guarantees that the funding we have already received will be there in the future. I know this may seem obvious to the TAY community, but sometimes I’m not sure that all the other backcountry users are aware that in all reality NWAC lives from year to year.

Again, I really want to thank you all for your contributions to this topic, please keep it up, the Board of Directors has been keeping an eye on this, and is really impressed with your interest and input on the future of NWAC.

I admit to knowing virtually nothing about government funding, but the thought does occur to me... Would receiving a significant portion of funding from memberships potentially jeopardize government funding, especially if some information/features were withheld from the general public and restricted to paying customers?

It's perfectly reasonable for NWAC to attempt and recover their manufacturing costs as part of their strategy for continued operations. Don't think anyone is suggesting that NWAC charge for access to the forecast ... but it wouldn't bother me if they did. Maybe they should charge a buck. No one walks in to REI and expects a t-shirt for $0. Why should NWAC give away for free the results of their considerable expertise?

The total combined budget for all North American avalanche forecast centers is incredibly small. It's just a couple million dollars for the entire continent of North America. And by couple million... I mean maybe $2 million to $3 million. Not $7 million or $9 million. If I remember correctly, the US Forest Service has around $450,000 dollars to divide among all the avalanche centers in the United States. And this isn't just a problem in Washington state. Forecasters across North America have endured serious financial hardship.

With respect to LordHedgie's comments ... it must be nice to view the funding process as some kind of abstraction. Let the forecasters eat cake, right? I'm trying hard not to write a very harsh response ... LordHedgie, maybe you can explain how charging money for expertise in any way constitutes socially irresponsible or unethical conduct? Surely the novices of which you speak would be far worse off if the avalanche center ceased operation. I'm sure most of the NWAC staff likes to eat as much as the rest of us and would probably like to have some sense that their paychecks will be steady. That's totally reasonable. Nothing wrong with making sure the bills are paid.

I'm new here so maybe I should just shut up instead ... but it's interesting for me to listen to some of the participants in this conversation and wonder how many thousands of dollars worth of skiing and mountaineering equipment might be found in their houses and garages. I'm not accusing anyone of being selfish ... but rarely do I see anyone who expects to get their hands on hard goods without handing over some money. Why should information be any different? Non-profit doesn't mean free-for-all.

So yeah, I'd pay a buck to read the forecast. Even if I read it everyday, it's still less money and better value than the cash I throw away at the coffeeshop on a cup of the day and blueberry cake.

CM,

I'm new here too. I don't understand why you'd feel the need to be harsh. I don't recall saying that I didn't feel memberships were a good idea, just pointing out some potential things to think about. Instead of looking at it from an ethical point of view, how about a litigation point of view?

What would happen if a couple of visiting out-of-state backcountry enthusiasts were killed in an avy, and it came out that the NWAC knew there were danger but refused to release that information to anyone but paying members?

From what I've read here, everyone seems to be in agreement that paid memberships for extra features is a good idea, but charging for the actual forecasts or potentially life-saving information is a bad idea. I'm not very familiar with the NWAC, but as far as I can tell it's a quasi-governmental non-profit organization. It has a mission to provide information to the public, and withholding that information goes counter to the core mission of the organization. Fundraising activities, on the other hand, do not.

Thanks for the reply. You said that it was extremely socially irresponsible for NWAC to deny potentially life-saving information to non-paying customers. It's not the responsibility of NWAC to ensure the safety of anyone. It is their mission to create an objective forecast of instability; this requires money. The traveler is in charge of their own safety at all times, not NWAC.

If an outstate tourist can be expected to pay for food, gasoline, lift tickets, and lodging, then it is entirely reasonable to expect them to pay for an avalanche forecast. I don't have an opinion on whether or not NWAC should charge a fee to read the forecast; I simply don't believe that it is unethical or irresponsible to do so.

What would happen to your out-of-state backcountry enthusiasts if there were no avalanche forecast available because of funding problems?