NPS still counting 410 skiers

I don't understand... it's not illegal to ski on public land, it's not illegal to ski out of bounds from Crystal, it's not adding impact to the park for you to ski to 410, so what's the deal with skiing out of bounds and into the park if you're a trained and prepared backcountry skier/snowboarder? I would understand if the Park was constantly mounting searches for yahoo's that don't know any better, but either Crystal covers that up, or it doesn't happen. And 10 tracks in a month and a half is NOTHING. Did he count uptracks too? It's possible that the track-layers skinned back up and into crystal to their cars at the end of the day after farming that snow.

perhaps we should invite said ranger, and coordinate a group ski where everyone has a partner, beacon, probe, and transceiver and make a trip to 410.

I wonder if Scotsman's ranger was hired by Crystal and not patroling for MRNP.  I don't know if that changes anything, but it might shift the venom in another direction.

Absolutely not,
I discussed this with John Kircher (Crystal Owner) a couple years ago and they are making the Park buy their own lift ticket to do the audit.
Originally the agreement was that Crystal had to support the cost of the audit patrol, but the Park got so ridiculous and was abusing the service (funding), so Crystal dumped them and told them if you want to have this information, pay for it yourself.
Then the Park got mad and threatened to close access to Southback, so Crystal said OK we will put a chair up to the top of the King. The park backed off because they know a chair would create more problems than hikers.
If you shovel all the crap off that the Park has been selling. Ie...environmental impact, a couple scratched trees, rescue operations. The real underlying issue is MRNP is trying to arrange several private vendor operations (besides climbing) in the Park to support activities. Crystal's is right on the boundary, so there is easy access. New vendors contracted might cry foul because Crystal is getting free access and the Park cannot control or manage a number for fear someone will start a shuttle guide program from the access road to Crystal. So the Park is not making money out of land being used, Also the liabilities that can result of that activity.
Crystal is not going to stop a person from skiing down to 410 and as anyone knows who has done this trip it can be a long journey back to the area.

It's possible that the track-layers skinned back up and into crystal to their cars at the end of the day after farming that snow.

I was told that every trip on a skin track or lap on a set track in the park is considered a visit by the MRNP auditor.
So you ski down skin up and ski again that is two visits in the park.
Geeze.... ???

Thanks coyote and Joedabaker. I'll do some reading.

Its probably worth paying attention to the vendor/concessionaire selection process, if in fact MRNP is really trying to arrange some kind of new activity or service. Public review of that process may be easier to come by than administrative decisions, though you've got to keep your eyes open for it.

Thanks again.

Jim H -

Joedabaker is spot on, and you can learn the most about what might motivate our friends at MRNP by reviewing the Final EIS and the various appendices wherein the NPS attempted to set forth a case for environmental damage associated with this out of area use.  It will only leave you frustrated as their own data actually concludes that actual skier use is minimal and not likely to have impact.  That did not stop them from trying to put the screws to Boyne during the permit process -- I believe that the fact that the trail up to the King passes into NPS territory is not insignificant leverage, and explains why Crystal was silent during the controversy.

I, and others bound by a TAY affiliation, contested and then appealed the decision and were able to point out both the lack of evidence to support any environmental impact, and the complete lack of authority for the NPS to enforce any condition of closure through a USFS permit decision.  The latter is the technical issue the Hearing Officer stood on in his decision -- they simply lacked jurisdictiion with respect to the resort permit and the judge saw that they were exploiting the back door as a federal agency.

Upon receiving resistance at a public meeting in Renton after the decision had been issued, the USFS backed right down on their attempts to leverage access restrictions from the ski area to other backcountry locations, but MRNP stood fast until the Federal Hearing Officer in Portland closed the door on them with the final decision which was NOT appealed.

I have all of the (my) various appeal documents, briefs, and decisions archived somewhere, and would be happy to try to find them if of serious interest.  PM me if you are interested in more info.

I believe that the Enumclaw Public Library continues to retain hard copies of all of the EIS documents if you are not able to obtain them from the USFS or on-line.

Give 'em hell all,

J.P.

Non violent civil disobedience is the  only way to protest this.

I think we should write NPS STOP on our butt-cheeks( need 4 people) and hang upside down from the Rainier Express quad with our pants at our ankles a la Vail.

I'm volunteering for NP, anybody want SS and TO and P??
Joedabaker, Vogtski , acarey you guys game?????

The NPS STOP will have to be written upside down so it reads right in the inverted position.

RonJ will you do the writing for us???

Scottie-
Obviously I'm new to this internet thingy, but isn't your initial post here called 'bait'? What a renaisance man you are! Family man, skier, searcher, comedian, and now fisherman! You certainly hit the nail (carpenter too?) on the head when you joked in November that the wrong NPS building was being demolished! I'm honored to be invited to your brilliant protest, but my ass is already rather exposed over here. I respectfully suggest that you try to recruit some women for maximum national publicity... Hope your flood repairs are proceeding as smoothly as possible!