Changes at Mt Rainier -- road closed Tues, Weds

Sam, I agree with the need; but is there the will?  I've attended a number of public meetings the FS had on recreational access.  Motorized vehicle users (motorcycle, ATV, snowmobile) were highly represented, coming in groups, wearing group jackets, and being vociferous.  Horse riders would also show up well represented.  Environmental/conservation groups usually were ably represented but their focus generally was on reducing public access.  Depending on the type of public meeting I've seen heavy organized representation by fishing groups, hunting groups, downhill skiers..  The Mountaineers seem to be active; they are a social organization focused on group outdoor activities.

Those, that from my perspective, don't often show up: real hikers (not tour bus strollers), backpackers, fly-fishers, bc skiers (XC-bc-telemark skiers, alpine tourers to ski mountaineers), etc..  Is it because that in general these people are less group/organization oriented, more interested in solitary our small group endeavors, appreciative of solitude, averse to densely populated events? In Meyer-Briggs terminology--many are introverts (energized by being alone, depleted by being with large numbers of others).

I thought a lot about this as I typed my earlier post, and I really agree with your concerns but feel that they aren't insurmountable. When times are good, the need for an organization such as I've proposed is non-existant; access is easy and people, understandably, can't be bothered to get organized since there isn't any pressing need. I would seriously doubt though that any of the groups you've mentioned would be as organized as they are without having felt their access rights threatened at some point and I think that BC skiers are now at that point. I think BC skiers share a lot of similarities with climbers in terms of demographic, so though I think your analysis of the persona of the BC skier is generally spot on, I also believe that if the access fund can make it work for climbers, there is no reason to believe that its impossible for skiers.

I realize this is likely beside the point for the most passionate of you, but how much traffic is going up to Paradise mid-week in the winter? Perhaps the answer is "We don't know because the NPS is more secretive than the 1980s KGB."

While I totally agree with Lowell that the ban on camping/human-powered access is absurd and fundamentally wrong, I'm having a hard time seeing how keeping a road open so you can ski is some kind of crucial issue or entitlement meriting a letter-writing campaign to Congress. Go somewhere else! I-90, U.S. 2, 542 and 12 are all open year round, and are FAR more important to commerce.

Yes, it would be great if the Paradise road, road to White River/Sunrise, etc. were consistently open year round and I'd probably use them occasionally in winter (though not much, because the weather is usually awful). They're not, so I go somewhere else. Big deal. If I'm going to write a letter to Congress about an issue, one road in one park for recreational purposes - especially when there are perfectly viable alternatives available - is WAY down the list of priorities.

To me, there's an enormous difference between denying access (you're not permitted to go above Longmire, for example) and simply not providing it (we're not going to plow the road, but hike/ski wherever you want). Denying is dead wrong. No providing is simply a matter of budget and priorities.

I'd feel differently about this if mid-week traffic was substantial enough to generate significant economic activity. I suspect it isn't, who knows? I doubt breakfast at Tall Timbers and a gas station or two qualifies as "substantial." Are the local businesses making a stink about this? It seems to me they'd be more influential than cheap skiers, but maybe not given the Hurricane Ridge experience.

One man's opinion....

I've always wondered why the road has to be plowed to perfection before opening? I can see why they would want the parking area completely clean but other ski area access roads allow vehicles way before they have completely finished plowing.

The official reasoning behind this is that the road is pretty narrow -- particularly around certain bridges and the numerous hairpin turns -- that they want the plows to have returned to Longmire before openning the gate.  

Commercial ski areas avoid this problem by simply having the plows start clearing the road and the lots at 4AM so they are ready for customers at daybreak.    

But MORA doesn't have the plow drivers start at 4AM -- 'cause then they would have to pay them shift differential -- and if addtional plowing was required during the day to deal with addtional snow fall they would end up having to pay overtime.  

... I'm having a hard time seeing how keeping a road open so you can ski is some kind of crucial issue or entitlement meriting a letter-writing campaign to Congress. Go somewhere else! I-90, U.S. 2, 542 and 12 ... more important to commerce.

Yes, it would be great if the Paradise road, road to White River/Sunrise, etc. were consistently open year round and I'd probably use them occasionally in winter (though not much, because the weather is usually awful). ...

I'd feel differently about this if mid-week traffic was substantial enough to generate significant economic activity. I suspect it isn't, who knows? I doubt breakfast at Tall Timbers and a gas station or two qualifies as "substantial." Are the local businesses making a stink about this? It seems to me they'd be more influential than cheap skiers, but maybe not given the Hurricane Ridge experience.

One man's opinion....

As far as I know the Park did not consult with local Inn Keepers (I purposefully asked one) or with the Public. National Parks, under their enabling legislation, are specifically for the enjoyment of the people; they are funded with taxpayer dollars and user fees for that purpose. I don't recall seeing "benefit to small business" as one of the reasons for National Parks, although small hospitality businesses of course gravitate to them. IMHO and having been told so, it is important for the Park to keep the road open to safeguard the bridge and the infrastructure from Longmire to Paradise; I do not see how they can forego plowing, especially after a big dump, that would substantially increase the difficulty and danger of clearing the road. They are going to keep the first 7 miles of the road open and staff will be on duty. So what is the problem? They haven't bothered to say. Just that relatively few people would be affected. What is the cost of allowing the public up the road on the 2 days it will be closed to the public. I'm glad you like I-5.

As far as I know the Park did not consult with local Inn Keepers (I purposefully asked one) or with the Public.  National Parks, under their enabling legislation, are specifically for the enjoyment of the people; they are funded with taxpayer dollars and user fees for that purpose.  I don't recall seeing "benefit to small business" as one of the reasons for National Parks, although small hospitality businesses of course gravitate to them.  IMHO and having been told so, it is important for the Park to keep the road open to safeguard the bridge and the infrastructure from Longmire to Paradise; I do not see how they can forego plowing, especially after a big dump, that would substantially increase the difficulty and danger of clearing the road.  They are going to keep the first 7 miles of the road open and staff will be on duty.  So what is the problem?  They haven't bothered to say.  Just that relatively few people would be affected.  What is the cost of allowing the public up the road on the 2 days it will be closed to the public.  I'm glad you like I-5.

Who said anything about I-5? ??? If they're going to plow the road anyway and not let the public up, that is indeed silly, if that's really the case.

I don't recall "keeping roads plowed year-round" appearing in the enabling legislation either. Everyone has a different definition of enjoyment. Ask the gun people what they think about not being able to carry on NPS land.

The fact is that having multiple business owners (and THEIR local elected officials) telling Congress that this decision will negatively impact economic development will be infinitely more impactful than writing emails quoting law and complaining about the lack of public hearings. Want your road open? Play the game.

As others have already mentioned in this thread, the lack of a skiing contituency puts us at a disadvantage.

...Ask the gun people what they think about not being able to carry on NPS land.

The fact is that having multiple business owners (and THEIR local elected officials) telling Congress that this decision will negatively impact economic development will be infinitely more impactful than writing emails quoting law and complaining about the lack of public hearings. Want your road open? Play the game. ...

BTW, Obama made it so gun owners can carry their guns on NPS lands with a state concealed carry permit.

I do play the game ... I lobbied for repair of the park road after the 2006 flood.  And I helped form a non-profit (I'm still a Director) of Ashford-area residents and businesses to lobby for upgrading the levee to protect the road to Paradise and SR706 from Ashford to the Park entrance to ensure continuing access to the park; we met with Congresspeople, their staffs, County, State, and Federal agencies as well as preparing reports and white papers on the social, environmental, and economic impacts of not upgrading the levee; more than 2/3 of it has been upgraded now by the Corps of Engineers and Pierce County; we also argued and lobbied for funds for the Park to actively manage the Tahoma Creek-Nisqually Confluence to protect infrastructure, environmental values, and access to the park; the park now has a good report from a consultant on what needs to be done and, I believe, the proposal for funding is in the pipeline.  I personally spent well over 100 hours in meeting for these efforts; some of our Directors spent much more; and we all spent considerable time on the computer.  I'm an environmental management consultant and I usually charge $1500/day (but did this work for free), so I feel I made a contribution above and beyond my entrance fees, the $5,000/year I pay in federal taxes to support Mt. Rainier NP (I don't believe in most of the other federal programs so I assume my tax dollars don't go to them), and the state and local taxes I pay to keep the local roads open and schools for park employees kids LOL

BTW, I am also a member of and on the ski patrol of the non-profit all-volunteer Mt. Tahoma Ski Trails System that is on DNR and private Timberlands just outside the Park so people can have a family-friendly place to ski and snowshoe.  Isn't it interesting this Trails system couldn't get Park or National Forest participation?  It gets higher visitation during the week than the Park.  I'm also an advisor to the Nisqually Land Trust that has been buying up timber lands to provide a scenic corridor to the park and was an initial advisor to the NLT sponsored Nisqually Community Forest that is striving to buy private timberlands to provide forests for community  sustainability and activities--isn't that a hoot in a community surrounded literally by millions of acres of public land (National Park, National Forest, WADNR, and UW Pack Forest)!  The Park provides us with a hard-working community outreach person for this activity.