Forest Service and North Cascade Heli

There is a loose end in the North Cascade Heli Ski unauthorized landings saga and this one falls squarely in the lap of the Forest Service. After a review of maps and a meeting with FS staff to discuss discrepancies in various LZ maps it appears that NCHS has, for many years, been using unauthorized landing sites. It's looking like there is somewhere in the neighborhood of up to  19 sites. As we still don't know if NCHS has finally and fully revealed all of their unauthorized landings and cuttings so there could be more, or less. These are aside from the newer (2012) cut sites  on the Silverstar/Varden Crk divide and Vasiliki Ridge. In Cutthroat Basin one of these unauthorized sites had 26 trees that were cut over the years, in a riparian area, the most recent cut likely 2-3 years ago.

The FS is currently trying to determine what to do about these unauthorized sites with the goal being, I believe, to have an NCHS LZ map that is complete and adhered to by NCHS. This would be a good thing - it's way past time.

There are two issues:

The FS really has to insist that NCHS reveal to the FS all of it's unauthorized landing sites, whether or not they were established under a previous owner or whether or not tree cutting was involved in establishing the sites. Full disclosure.

Secondly, should the FS allow NCHS to use some of these unauthorized landing sites going forward? In some cases it may make logical sense to allow some of these sites to be used -but- I have a hard time with the concept of many years of illegal use leading to allowed future use (any bc skiing attorneys want to weigh in on this one?) . That just doesn't make sense and sets  a bad precedent.

Once this issue is resolved I'm pretty sure that NCHS will be playing a clean game and then responsible management of the permit is on the Forest Servce. I do want to say that I very much appreciate Forest Service staff being willing to meet and frankly discuss these issues with me and anyone else who's interested.

The Forest Service is going to be making a decision about this soon, so let them know what you think. Contact District Ranger Mike Liu at:

mliu@fs.fed.us
509-996-4000

Matt
   

Way to stay after it--you are very brave!

All I can say is that the people I know in CO, UT, ID and WY keep googling "north cascades skiing" and this site and the threads come up on their radar. They all own sleds so perhaps these discussions could take place off of the internet. Thanks.

I don't think TAY trip reports/forum discussions show up in Google, at least not during any of my quick testing when searching "north cascades skiing turns all year"... This has its pros and cons but I kind of like it that way.

I am somewhat sympathetic to Winthrops plight. I would be more sympathetic if they plowed the road at least to the Silverstar Creek (or even better cutthroat, but that requires avy control). Then I would visit more then just once a year (:

I think most solutions to preserving ski touring areas from being gobbled up by motorized use is to increase access and visibility. With increased numbers the government has more reason to heed your cause and commercial ops are less likely to develop in those areas because they can not count on being able to provide fresh powder. Also if you become a ski touring meca then other businesses will be created such as huts/guides, who will join their voices to yours in protecting ski touring areas (businesses have stronger voices in America). Secret stashes have their place but I think the NC highway is beyond being "secret" at this point.

Prime example of increased access/exposure protecting a ski touring area in Canada is the Gorge area. It is surrounded by catskiing and snowmobiling but neither group develops the area because on any given year if the road is being plowed into their operating season they will get swarmed with hordes of BC skiers. You could also consider the Spearhead another example of this. The heli companies are starting to back away due to increased ski traffic and huts are going up in their wake.

All this is not to say I want NCH to get screwed but I am sure they have more ski terrain available to them then shots that are quickly accessed from the road. If they do not have enough ski terrain to operate then maybe the community should consider making a concession and giving them more terrain elsewhere as a trade?

Of course take all my words with a lot of salt as I know nothing beyond this forum as to what is going on in the NC Highway zone.

Another example of lax oversight by the feds of unauthorized heli-ski landing sites adjacent to Glacier Bay NP:
www.adn.com/2013/12/31/3253760/southeast...iskiing-company.html

Another example of lax oversight by the feds of unauthorized heli-ski landing sites adjacent to Glacier Bay NP:
www.adn.com/2013/12/31/3253760/southeast...iskiing-company.html

Hardly the same thing. According to the article and comments, their LZ's were potentially outside their permit area because the straight area boundary lines didn't follow the ridgelines, so the LZs were occasionally outside the permit boundary even if the majority of the run was inside the boundary. Not exactly the same as disputes about cutting LZs.