NPS still counting 410 skiers

I heard Uberaga mumbling about 'precious bodily fluids'.

We are not complaining about the Ranger as a person. ...
The Park ... have already made the decision but have been thwarted in their attempt to enforce it. The data collection is biased towards providing the results they want, so they can get what they want.

I agree; I think that you will meet many nice, personable, friendly people in the NPS. I can't think of one I've met over the last 40 years who has been mean, nasty, or spiteful [but evidently some on this site have encountered such employees and volunteers--and I don't doubt their tales]. However, the administration's agenda, the NPS and MRNPleadership's agenda, and the personal beliefs/philosophies of many NPS people are at odds with my philosophy and ideas about conservation (I did research on natural ecosystems for 30+ years and wrote a book on conservation).

There seems to be a belief in our society that if someone is nice and personable their beliefs and actions will be acceptable as well; not so--Bernie Madoff is a prime example, admired by all, his investors thoroughly screwed.

It is my opinion, that if a park employee can not agree with the enabling legislation for parks, then they should change jobs.

The NPS Organic Act of 1916: "The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

The earlier, 1899, specific legislation establishing MRNP explicitly states for "the benefit and enjoyment of the American people" and includes some directions on how to accomodate visitors.

In the Renton meeting, Uberaga repeatedly insisted that despite any evidence, his feeling was that skiing is detrimental to the park.

Needless to say, several members of the attendees lambasted him up and down for making such a ridiculous, unbased, biased opinion that completely jetted into the face of the entire procedure.

Other entities had spent millions of dollar and months of time and yet here was an administrator not only flagrantly flaunting the process, but did so outside of any official meetings, forcing the UFSF to quietly slip the closure verbage into ever one of the 6 alternatives.

Joeda is correct the Park Service has been counting tracks down to 410 for years and had the funding paid in part by Crystal but I heard the funding stopped within the past two years ? The big issue is the environmental damage caused by skiers frequenting the park and it is all documented. The traffic into the park has grown steadily in the past few years and there is a fear that Crystal is making a profit off of National Park land.

Joeda is correct the Park Service has been counting tracks down to 410 for years and had the funding paid in part by Crystal but I heard the funding stopped within the past two years ? The big issue is the environmental damage caused by skiers frequenting the park and it is all documented. The traffic into the park has grown steadily in the past few years and there is a fear that Crystal is making a profit off of National Park land.

Now, I don't ski around Crystal at all. So that fear on the part of MRNP seems pretty irrational to me as did the argument about commerce. If I follow their logic, because I bought a lift ticket at Crystal a decade ago, I became a Crystal customer forever and should be banned from skiing in the park. In my distorted view, when someone who bought a lift ticket and took the lift to the top, they were acting as a Crystal customer; when they left the ski area boundaries, they ceased being a customer, whether they left by skiing or by driving. I would love to see the documentation of damage to the park by skiers. I don't doubt that vandal skiers can do damage, that skiing on inadequate snow can do damage, altho not as much as heavy snowfall and avalanches, the casual hikers around Paradise and Sunrise in the summer, and early plowing of the Paradise Valley road to get ready for tour buses (many trees are destroyed). I think it is incumbent upon us as a bc skiing community to remind each other (self-police) to protect and preserve the park, its infrastructure, and its vegetation, just like it is incumbent upon park personnel to reach out to and educate the park using public. I would rather see a partnership between the experienced and trained bc community and the park, rather than an adversarial relationship. I, and I believe many other, assist less experienced tourists in the bc in finding their way and avoiding hazards, and even sometimes rescue them. I think it would be cool if those of us who have experience; 1st aid, avalanche, and route finding training; and carry appropriate equipment (avy, navigational, 1st aid) could become a cadre and resource assisting the climbing rangers (and getting minor privileges like getting thru the gate early ). I'm volunteer ski patrol on MTTA and its fun, helping out the hapless, and provides yet another stimulus to ski every other day despite conditions.

I think it is incumbent upon us as a bc skiing community to remind each other (self-police) to protect and preserve the park, its infrastructure, and its vegetation, just like it is incumbent upon park personnel to reach out to and educate the park using public.  I would rather see a partnership between the experienced and trained bc community and the park, rather than an adversarial relationship. 

Well said! I am as anti-resort as anybody in the skiing community, but closing slopes between a developed ski area and a road b/c of the 'environmental inpact' of 10's of skiers per season is ridiculous! The bad blood between skiers and MRNP is so discouraging and unnecessary -- backcountry users in general should be the park's first line of defense. The park itself is a majestic and valuable jewel. I'm happy to see it preserved and appreciated and equally dejected to see it so poorly managed.  :'(