New St. Helens Winter Permit Process 11/1/08

A family with 3 kids wants to go ski Saint Helens like I did, it would cost 22 x 5 and if the weather is crap you can't go. There aren't many people who can afford that. When I was in college I couldn't, so I didn't pay them. This isn't like we're taking up race car driving or something. We're going outside and I think there shouldn't be a disincintive to do that, especially for those that aren't wealthy. Most climbers and skiers aren't bad off from what I've noticed. Is that the way we want our community to be?

Add up the fee 22 x 100 x all the days of the season...not a lot of money in total. Enough to pay for a few employees to collect a fee and a place to work.

And yeah, snowmos pay a fee to register, but so does every motorized vehicle. That isn't a user fee. I also pay for a sno-park pass, as most BC skiers do. I'm still at a loss for what the fees add??? They aren't maintaining a trail for skiers?

Climbing permits are required year-round.
Each climber must display their own climbing permit.
Permits are valid for 24 hours starting at midnight for the date of climb.
Maximum party size is 12 climbers.
Access is limited to protect the volcano’s physical and biological features and processes, and to reduce crowding.

Right there in bold answers my ? about multiple summits. 

Okay, enough whinning

I'm just preaching to the choir here.

I've summarized some of the points brought up in this thread below (feel free to add or edit if I missed anything). Maybe we should send them in as a concerns about the way that the permit system is implemented during spring skiing season? A comment from one person probably doesn't register too much, but letters from 10 or 20 like-minded skiers/snowboarders would at least put it on their radar.

Contact info:

The Mt St Helens Institute (email: info@mshinstitute.org)
Mt. St. Helens National Monument ( www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/04contact/contactus.shtml )


1) The climbing fee amount is excessive for families

A fee of $22 for a family of five to climb the mountain together is $110. This is a significant expenditure for most familes, and an overall disincentive to get kids interested in healthy outdoor activities like climbing and skiing.


2) It's unclear what the climbing fee pays for during the spring

Skiers pay for sno-park passes to fund road clearing and parking lot maintenance, and the snow-covered route up the mountain does not receive or require grooming. Most skiers appreciate the work of climbing rangers, but its unclear how much if any of these funds pay for their time on the mountain.


3) The permit system is inflexible during the spring skiing months (April and May) when it is impossible to foresee in advance if a date will be safe for climbing

Skiers often must choose their days on mountains when snow and weather conditions allow for safe and enjoyable travel. To climb at other times can be difficult and potentially dangerous because of poor weather or avalanche conditions. The current system requires skiers to obtain a permit well in advance with no way of knowing what conditions will be like on the day of a climb, and doesn't allow them to change their date if conditions are poor. This provides a possible incentive to make the cllimb in suboptimum or hazardous conditions.


4) Backcountry skiers, snowboarders, and snowshoers are required to purchase a permit to climb the mountain, while snowmobilers apparently are not

Is their a reason for treating these two user groups differently? A person on foot or on skis clearly does not have a larger impact than one on a motorized sled.

DG ,
Thanks for summing up and posting the links.
I propse that all interested in getting the Policies changed should Email and or send letter.
Is there anyone out there who belongs to the Mazama's other portland clubs or has access to the Portland Gear shops?

I'm thinking we can push this. Some simple concrete demands are needed.

[begin rant]

This whole discussion is disconcerting to me. Unfortunately, I think that the bc ski community has too small of a voice.

I believe that since public lands are open to all of the public the maintenance and management should be paid for out of the general national budget. I realize that this point of view probably doesn't stand up to thorough scrutiny.

I have a hard time with the northwest forest pass but at least after several faulty starts it now works just about everywhere and it seem to have solved the problem of having to deal with a huge variation in management approaches when travelling from one area to another.

I'm ok with paying a small fee to support plowing the road up to the parking lot at St. Helens. Skiers and snowmobilers both use the parking lot and both groups contribute commensurately with road use. I understand the need to regulate the number of people on the mountain during the summer due to the fragile recovering alpine environment. I agree with the consensus that the current system has many faults and doesn't do a good job of considering the needs of the climbing community.

Altogether, I detest the idea of paying a large fee at every park that I go to. $30 to drive into Mt. Rainier, $30 for a NW forest pass, a fee to hike to the top of St. Helens, a fee to climb Adams, a fee to park in the Olympic National Park, a fee to camp in the ONP, a different fee for just about everything I do. If the issue is funding the maintenance and management of the outdoors, I would guess that I spend abouit $100/year buying permits and what not. Of the outdoor enthusiast group I'm probably the average. Outdoor rec users are probably a relatively small portion of society. If every American paid and extra $25/year in federal income tax, the problem would be solved. Granted, people in Kansas would be screwed out of $25 and the TAY crowd would be getting a bargain. This concept goes directly against my libertarian ideals but socialism has some real perks once in a while.

I think my proposal is pretty logical but I realize that it has many faults. Not the least is that if everyone pays the tax then the tax should be applied to give the biggest benefit to the largest constituency. That means our little skiing/climbing group would lose out in the land use debates. Unfortunately, I don't see a better system...

[end rant]