Should the NWAC be publicly funded?

Honoring jdclimbers wishes I've started a new thread as instructed to give my point of view .
Firstly I think the NWAC is a great thing and shouldn't be closed due to lack of funding.
However I don't think it should be publicly funded especially in these times where Federal, State and municipal budgets are stretched to the limit and essential services are being cut.

Backcounty skiing is a pastime .
Maritime reports and road condition reports are not the same as people have to use the seas and roads to commute and work and carry out economically benificial activities on them.

So no, NWAC should have no public funding but should be privately funded by backcountry skiers and recreational winter uses who want the report.

We should pay for it either by subscription, donation, fundraising, buying a membership or an annual user fee for the BC  or all of the above.
I'm willing to pay for it .... are you??

Annual user fee? You mean a fee for anyone who wants to recreate in winter on public land? No way. I rarely look at the NWAC forecasts because they have little value for the areas I usually tour in. I find more value in the FOAC field reports, they don't require any funding, and first hand reports from people I know. Doesn't WSDOT use NWAC forecast or do they have there own forecasters?

I'd pay for the mountain weather forcast alone, which is 1,000,000,000x better than NOAA. Who maintains the telemetry? I'd pay a lot more for continued access to that.

Why not both?  

Without knowing how much collaboration vs overlap currently takes place between NWAC and WSDOT, to me it would seem to be most efficient to have one outfit handling the avalanche forecasting for the state.  Keeping the passes open is clearly in the states best economic interests.  Sadly, it has not been a 07/08 season w/ multiple and prolonged pass closures but i seem to recall the estimated loss to be neighborhood of $.75-1MM per hour.  

So in my rambling way, why not have a substantial portion of the NWAC's budget come from WSDOT, another from the ski areas or any other heli/hut skiing operation with the remainder from some sort of access fee for bc skiers/slednecks?

The telemetry is useful, I don't know how much it cost to maintain the sites. The weather forecasts for the east side are not very useful once you get a dozen or so miles east of the crest, NWS Spokane is much better at forecasting for the east slopes.

Annual user fee? You mean a fee for anyone who wants to recreate in winter on public land? No way. I rarely look at the NWAC forecasts because they have little value for the areas I usually tour in. I find more value in the FOAC field reports, they don't require any funding, and first hand reports from people I know. Doesn't WSDOT use NWAC forecast or do they have there own forecasters?

As I have stated in other posts... I don't use the NWAC  avy reports either as I think they can be misleading because they generalize too much ( not a criticism just an inherent fact) and I like to make my own assessment but I know many people that do and I do look at the weather section occasionally as it's well laid out.
Just like Jdclimber's thread sking for testimonials that saved lives, I can give you some when I read the report and didn't go and missed out on some sweet powder skiing as a result

Annual user fee.... yea I think I'm against that as well since you mention it because of that.

However, I think it should be funded by people that want to use it.
In today's internet age I'm sure it's possible that a person could be automatically charged every time they use it after initially subscribing.