NPS avy gear census at Crystal Southback

I just got off the phone with Ranger Steve Klump. I had asked Steve via email this morning  to review this thread and then call me which he did. Steve is the Wilderness District Ranger for MRNP and the immediate supervisor to winter backcountry Rangers Dan Cammicca (west side of the Park) and Geoff Walker (east side of the Park). Geoff is Monica's immediate supervisor.

Steve said he knew of no survey being done by the Park Service regarding or related to the FS/NPS boundary at Crystal. He theorized that Monica was probably doing something on her own that might have something to do with her season drawing to a close and the reports that she would want to submit at the year’s conclusion to her season at Crystal. Steve said he tried to call Geoff before he called me to see if Geoff knew what Monica was doing but Geoff wasn’t in his Enumclaw office.

I asked Steve what the he thought the Park’s intentions were regarding closing the Park to skiers entering from Crystal permit area. He said the Park boundary is not closed anywhere by the NPS and probably never will be. The big dispute over the closure was during Forest Service’s approval of Crystal’s Expansion Plan was a function of the PS attempting to pressure the FS to prohibit skier traffic down to 410 as a condition of their approval.
Steve said they lost on that argument primarily because the skier traffic estimates (wherever they came from) were found to be inaccurate and much higher than likely. He said that they don’t have any problem with experienced backcountry skiers skiing down from Crystal to 410 any more than they do with skiers elsewhere in the park; that’s one of the primary winter uses of MRNP.
They do worry about lift skiers with no backcountry experience ducking the rope and heading for 410 only to get in trouble and need rescue (or worse). And he pointed out that this is also a problem for the Crystal Patrol as they are often in position to be the first responders to those incidents. That may have been the topic Monica was considering in her survey.

I strongly urged Steve to consider spearheading a program wherein the NPS had an “official spokesperson” that would represent them on social media such as TAY. I pointed out that much of the misinformation that gets bandied about on threads involving the NPS (not this one, of course) could be clarified and quelled much easier if the real facts were easily at hand.
He said it was a good idea but there were two reasons why he shied at the suggestion:
The first was what I would call the “Dogpile Syndrome”.  I think you already know what I’m talking about here. I assured him that the Scottsman and the PNW Brit would never think of such callous behavior. He seemed to feel that his skin was nonetheless thick enough for that but,
His second reason for demurring the offer of suggesting a NPS presence here is that he feels that private citizens should feel like they have the freedom to say (or write) what they want without fear of government intervention or monitoring. He knows that as a poster he would not really be “Big Brother” (my words, not his) but he would still not feel right about any implication.
I thought it was a really good reason so I dropped the subject.

On the other hand Steve pointed out part of every NPS Ranger’s job is public education so he strongly encourages any and all of the public and especially Park users to ask questions and get the PS’s views and opinions on an and all matters regarding the Park and its use.
He made it clear that he is willing to meet with folks, including the ad hoc committee that seems to be forming as a result of this thread if anyone here feels the need. He says to just call him, Steve Klump at 360-569-2211 x3304 and he would be happy to answer any questions or meet with any group on any day except his days off (Sunday and Monday).

Nice work Ron -- that's some solid info and a good start at a more open dialogue.

From the reply I got from the ski patrol, it seems as though Monica was taking a survey and giving the info to Crystal to help them be more prepared (??) So I guess it's still not clear to me.
Anyhow, in case Corey doesn't know- she wasn't volunteering to "stand out there for hours", she is being paid to go to work.


(Ski Patroller) Responds:
I'm not sure where you were questioned, but when you hike into Southback, you're hiking in Mt. Rainier National Park and it doesn't surprise me if the Park wants to get a sense of how prepared people there are for the slides that will inevitably occur. (Remember the signs--"Avalanche Prone Area"?) And yes, she told me that conducting surveys is in her job description. I kinda said that in my article there, didn't I?
We at Crystal like having a sense of skiers' & boarders' behavior too--It can help us be prepared to know how many of our ticketed skiers are following the safety recommendations on our signs. On Saturday, thanks to Monica standing out there for hours, we learned that more people than we expected were carrying transceivers (around 30%) but less than we hoped also had the partners, probes and shovels that would likely be needed to rescue somebody!
On a side note: Seriously?, "interrogating"?? Wouldn't "surveying" or "interviewing" worked as well? I just say that because Monica has never struck me as the CIA waterboarding type. But I'm sorry if it seemed too intrusive!

Well that's great news Ron and thanks for doing that and I think somebody should take advantage of the opportunity you have opened up and follow up on it ASAP.

If a group can be arranged to do this that would be fantastic and maybe you should take the lead in setting up that group. I'd be happy to come and will voluntary submit to having my mouth duct taped during the meeting.

I am happy to hear that the NPS has no plans to ever close the boundary and yes , I admit that I am extremely skeptical of his answers . Skepticism in this case is a good thing and I don't think giving them the benefit of the doubt or taking them at their word is prudent in this case. Reliable information from many sources indicate that this is just not the case no matter what their spokesman says and many people way less inflammatory  and pugnacious than I are convinced that their eventual aim is to close the boundary. Perhaps a meeting with the NPS and Uberegada himself would help dispel some of this criticism and skepticism.

As to your comment regarding me and PNWbrit, he's his own man and I'll let him comment but in my case I'll gladly recluse myself from the process if my presence is determental as long as SOMEBODY actually does something. Yes I am critical of the NPS policies and the " civility at all cost" attitude on TAY ( but lets not go into that again even though you obliquely brought it up). JOKE WARNING ITs' time for me to invoke Godwins Law. We Brits remember MR Chamberlain and his civility towards certain organizations in 1939 ( I think) He was certainly civil. We called it appeasement. END OF JOKE

My own view is that TAY is NOT a place to enter into a discussion directly with them. Nuances are lost on the interwebz and no substitute for direct face to face meetings where protocol can be observed and behaviour controlled. The interwebz and discussion boards are always subject to anarchy and can only be controlled through moderation and  censorship and are therefore not conducive to solving complicated issues between parties.

Can somebody just take the ball and run with it for a bit. If we can get some verifiable satisfaction that the NPs isn't going to close the boundary and isn't collecting data, we can all breathe a sigh of relief and start complaining about something else. I for one remain unconvinced and need to hear it from the "man".

I asked Steve what the he thought the Park’s intentions were regarding closing the Park to skiers entering from Crystal permit area. He said the Park boundary is not closed anywhere by the NPS and probably never will be.

Despite their previously best efforts to do so....?

during Forest Service’s approval of Crystal’s Expansion Plan was a function of the PS attempting to pressure the FS to prohibit skier traffic down to 410 as a condition of their approval.
Steve said they lost on that argument primarily because the skier traffic estimates (wherever they came from) were found to be inaccurate and much higher than likely. He said that they don’t have any problem with experienced backcountry skiers skiing down from Crystal to 410 any more than they do with skiers elsewhere in the park; that’s one of the primary winter uses of MRNP.
They do worry about lift skiers with no backcountry experience ducking the rope and heading for 410 only to get in trouble and need rescue (or worse)

Her(the) surveying of numbers of lift skiers crossing into the park has been common knowledge for a couple of seasons. The beacon question while new is absolutely aimed at making this a safety issue.

Steve said he knew of no survey being done by the Park Service regarding or related to the FS/NPS boundary at Crystal.

Scottie - do you want to meet with Ranger Klump. Maybe we can invite one or two others to do so? Bring up some other stuff too. Like the the tactical plowing of 410 to prevent legal snowmobiling, the Sunrise rangers only private ski resort, Paradise side opening times... all the BS that they pull.

I think you are "dog piling" and I can see RonJ in my mind smiling and saying I told you so.

As I said I'd be delighted to meet with a crediblesource within the NPS but only as part of a formal organized group with a credible leader ( and thats not me).