NPS avy gear census at Crystal Southback

Has anyone asked her / NPS / Crystal Patrol about the purpose of the survey?

Actually I did ask about it on the ski patrol blog. The reply was disappointing in tone. Seemed defensive to me and I still don't know why the NPS is doing this "survey".

All right, Big Porker !!  -  but just remember that the theories you eschew are the entertainment you seek..        And I'm down with Kneel, too..

It's interesting to contrast the interrelationship between ONP and the Hurricane Ridge Ski Area with what is described in this thread.

It is stipulated in our operating agreement with ONP that the ski area must provide a groomed, designated and signed access route through the ski area for non-ticketed visitors who wish to access wilderness outside the northeast boundary of the ski area. Additionally, the ridge line above the POMA Bowl is the boundary between ONP wilderness and the ski area. This boundary is clearly marked, but guests riding the lifts are in no way discouraged by ONP from leaving the ski area and heading out into the backcountry.

Gary

That's good to hear BUT I have had run ins with the ONP Rangers up at Hurricane.
They have a policy that all backcountry travelers must sign into the log book by the visitor center and will give you a ticket if you don't.

I was once going BC at HR when a ranger came up and asked me if I had signed in the log book. I told him I hadn't and that I didn't intend to. I was very polite, seriously. He said I had to that it was a rule . I told him I thought it wasn't a rule but a desire and he couldn't force me to sign in. He said he would check the rule book and get back to me but I was to stay where I was. He came back in about a minute with some sort of book and showed me a section where it said it was mandatory and that if I didn't he would write me a ticket ( I think the fine was $75).
Now I understand his reasons, namely that they use it to make sure everybody is back safely  etc. but I told him that MRNP did not have this rule and why does the various NP's have different rules.
He couldn't and wouldn't explain that and by that time had become very belligerent!!
I told him I would prefer to sign a piece of paper absolving the NPS from rescuing me or any liability if I got into trouble but he wanted me to sign the log book and again threatened me with a fine. I eventually complied and had a nice tour.

Why would ONP require mandatory sign in/out and the MRNP not!

Have they changed that policy at ONP or is it still enforced upon penalty of a fine.?

To keep some historical perspective, it is important to remember that the favorable November 17, 2004 decision by Appeal Reviewing Officer Kimberly Bown was based upon a very narrow legal issue -- that the USDA does not have the authority to implement mitigation measure REC1, which was the boundary closure restricting access to the Park.

In other words, the Department fo the Interior can't conspire with the Department of Agriculture and Boyne to do their dirty work for them.

MRNP is likely working to establish data to support a future action to be based in "public health and safety".  The courts will give the Park broad discretion to manage their territory if it is based in a finding rooted in public safety.

Boyne was prepared 6 years ago to give up skier access to the park (down to Hwy 410) in exchange for a "handshake" to allow access to the King and southback.  Once the NPS has gathered enough data (unprepared skiers entering the backcountry via their dirt) they will be able to make an independent  finding with respect to public safety and threaten to close the access to the King. 

There will be an outcry, and Boyne will go to bat for the skiers to "strike a deal" (with the NPS, not the USFS) to restrict access to the park down to 410, in exchange for managed access to the King and southback for those proving up their avy equipment and knowledge.  Boyne will continue to fund NPS staff to monitor and enforce the settlement agreement.

If anyone really wants to review the earlier appeal information and decision, PM me with your e-mail address.

J.P.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Exactly!
Thank you JP.
It's only a matter of time before the NPS has collected enough data to make their case. For many access down to 410 probably isn't an issue as long as access to the King is preserved but it would be a very very bad thing and set a terrible precedent.
Boyne is caught in the middle and the NPS knows that and wants to use the King access as a bargaining tool in getting the rest of the boundary closed.

I'm not sure what can be done to stop them as Uberuaga is determined to get this done but we should at least try!
Any suggestions anybody?

Here's mine: I think we need to form a commitee/ group whatever you want to call it . This group needs to diplomatic type as its spokesman. The group needs to meet with Boyne and the NPS, start engaging them in a conversation about the issue and try and find a solution that keeps access open! Our apathy will allow the inevitable to happen unless we start engaging them.
Somebody like GaryJan would be perfect as the spokesman, team leader ( not trying to draft you BUT) as he has crediblity, a smooth diplomatic manner and experience working with the Park Sytem on ski related matters.
How about you JP?
What about the original members of the group that won the initial decision?
Anybody want to step up to the plate and help me get this formalized and organized??