No skiing below Pebble Creek

Thanks for your support on a group to talk to the NPS. You are recognised and respected leader in the backcountry skiing community. Want to volunteer?

I'm willing to contribute as an advisor, but I'm not willing to lead the effort. I'm currently involved in something like eight projects as team leader, team member, or advisor, including a couple engineering projects that are my "real job." I don't feel able to take on more commitments right now.

I'm willing to contribute as an advisor, but I'm not willing to lead the effort.

I think any group would be well served to take you up on your offer of advisor . Now if we could only find a person willing to head up this thing and organize a meeting to kick it off.
Hello out there!

Others are more knowledgeable. People like Joedabaker have been working on issues like this for years and where involved in the original fight over the Crystal Boundary. We need respected voices like that.

Well, uh...Like, thanks, but I'm in agreement of the idea of a Skier Advocacy Group, but fundamentally I have problems with leading a consortium. IMHO the intent is right and should be pursued in some capacity, but an organization turns into it's own entity that always needs to be fueled and flows in other directions than the original purpose. There needs to be a clear definition of the goals and direction of the group as to keep the focus on Skier Advocacy pure and not get lead into other interests.
The success that we had on the Crystal Mountain boundary came from the fact that we (our small group) read the rules ands the park did not know their own rules. So long story short, we won because the park did not know their own rules.
From my experience and research there is a lot more than meets the eye down the road in the park. I read a 5 year plan a while back that MRNP had which would allow private vendors to operate in the park. Hiking guide services and others I can't quite remember. This got me thinking, Crystal's operations on the edge of the park are legal, but skiers entering the park jeopardize agreements for future contracted vendors in the park. Since Crystal is an outside vendor allowing (NOT ENCOURAGING THEM) skiers access inside the park in theory extends their boundary of the area. Therefore Crystal is theoretically benefiting from Government owned lands, and not having to pay fees to the park for their service. I wonder why the park is trying to close access??
The vendor service I talked about earlier is a win-win for the park as it offers more recreational services as long as the vendors stay within the park's guidelines. But the park benefits financially from the vendors and vistitors.
If Crystal skiers use the park from the lifts, MRNP vendors could rebuke and say how come Crystal is getting away with free access for their customers and ours have to pay? Good question?
So there is one of the underlying snakes not really reported to the public and one reason that the park has gone to so much effort to designate the adjacent park sections to Crystal as Pristine Wilderness. By rules of the park it is designed to reduce visitor numbers to that area of the park, because it is now "Pristine" and somewhere around 24 persons are allowed in the zone per day and no groups more than 12. Powder Mag article that covers some of the meeting HERE ,
This whole process has been well thought out by the park and very underhanded to undermine skier access in my opinion, they just missed on one thing the courage and tenacity of a few skiers to blow their plan out of the water. But it is good to know that the Park spent a ton of our money in attorney fees to fight us and ended up losing in the end.

So as long as the intentions of the Skier Advocacy Group is pure without extended agendas, stays focused on the issues and the rules, and not greedy I believe it will survive.

Great post Joe and I think very thought producing. It is also my belief that any skier advocacy group  should have a narrow focus and like you I would be worried about it having a tendency to try and address other social/economical issues or other park issues or freedom for Tibet etc.

I did some networking yesterday and had an e-mail conversation with a respected business man and outdoor access advocate, Mr Doug Walker. Doug has been involved in access issues for a while and is an avid mountaineer and backcountry skier and he and I skied the Nisqually chute together this year. I directed him to this thread and asked for advise.

His advise was to keep it a fairly narrow focus but advises that certain organizations such as the Access Fund can be helpful. He quoted a recent case where the Washington Climbers Coalition had some specific issue with the North Cascades National  Park and how by working with the Access Fund they where able, after a longish process to get what they wanted. He also stressed that diplomacy is required to make the process work.
Thanks Doug for the excellent advise.

I like Joe ,think the next step is to have a meeting with interested parties so see if we have a common focused voice and a consensus on what  our issues are, or if there is even enough interest and support which I am beginning to doubt frankly and I feel interest waning.Which is OK as well, if it's felt there's not a need, the people have spoken and it can't be forced.

Ps. The Crystal Boundary issue is not over, the NPS are just collecting data and preparing for their next attempt IMVHO.

I don't know if interest is wanning so much as it might just be on hold - waiting for the next step in these things can be very trying of one's patience - especially when we want some forward momentum!  After reading through Lowell's link , I was thinking maybe we need to open the discussion with various collegiate ski/outdoor clubs?  Open up the discussion a bit into their forums.  Not only can that generate interest into the MRNP concerns of our growing pastime, but college students are really good at thinking out of the box.  Sometimes they can be the momentum we need.  Like it was said before, right now is a good time to start this snowball pinwheeling...we have a bit of time before school begins again.  Possibly enough time to call school clubs or throw up some TAY posters on the campus highlighting this thread?  Just some ideas...

I like Joe ,think the next step is to have a meeting with interested parties so see if we have a common focused voice and a consensus on what  our issues are, or if there is even enough interest and support which I am beginning to doubt frankly and I feel interest waning.Which is OK as well, if it's felt there's not a need, the people have spoken and it can't be forced.

Ps.  The Crystal Boundary issue is not over, the NPS are just collecting data and preparing for their next attempt IMVHO.

I think your interest group is right here. You've already identified several issues of concern, such as:

1) Crystal boundary
2) Paradise Road in the winter, will it stay open in the future. etc, etc.
3) Sunrise next year

The first step to address any of these issues is research. That doesn't take much diplomacy (as long as you can ask questions in a civil tone ). If somebody who's interested in these issues would be willing to find out where the park service stands on these and report back to TAY, that would be a great first start. If diplomacy or political pressure was needed, that could come later and different people could take the lead. One step at a time.

I've taken part in several volunteer projects in the last few years and the only way I've seen them work is for somebody to take the lead. You can't force people to volunteer. It can be frustrating but it's actually a great reality check. If you can't get people to volunteer, it means that it's not very important to them.