source lake uphill dog park trail

I understand the arrangement between Alpental and the usfs. Of course the ski area has and should have control over all operations including closing and controlling ski runs when necessary.

But I don't think it's naive to feel that it would be unfair to ban uphill travel, if it's conducted in a safe and reasonable manner (which may not have been the case in the matter at hand), because uphill skiers are not revenue customers. It is, after all, still public land.

That said, I personally dont see what the interest is in skinning up a ski resort unless it's before or after the resort is open for the season.

I don't get the level of teeth gnashing on this subject. 

A good percentage of the angst seems to be about the inconvenience of downward bound skiers having to limit speed in order to be in sufficient control to avoid a collision with an ascending skier (and perhaps their dog)

The problem I have with that complaint is that another downward bound skier could have stopped or fallen at any point on the trail and downward bound skiers have a responsibility to avoid them (both by the  The Skier Responsibility Code and Washington State Law )

Because of the inherent risks in the sport of skiing all persons using the ski hill shall exercise reasonable care for their own safety. However, the primary duty shall be on the person skiing downhill to avoid any collision with any person or object below him or her.

Thing is, there is a route that avoids the downhill skier traffic.

Thing is, there is a route that avoids the downhill skier traffic.

Re-read what I said above -- especially the part about some other downhill skier might have fallen in downhill track and be blocking the trail.

Thing is, this is a ski area.
We pay for access to lifts and trails, that includes exit trails.
This has been going on far longer than peoples interest in using the back end of lot 4 as their touring access point.

Take a look at a map.
Consider the relatively small area that Alpental occupies.
Now look at all the terrain that can be accesses surrounding the pass and other areas East and or North of the crest...

To me, I am hearing "why so selfish?" about terrain around Alpental.
AFAIK, why is it that people can't leave the little bit that is Alpental alone for those who have paid for that service and go some place else where there wont be conflict?

The whole "this is public land and I should be able to do whatever I want" is an invalid, self entitled argument for special snowflakes.

www.summitatsnoqualmie.com/mountains/safety/bc-policy

The Alpental Back Bowls are outside of the developed portion of Alpental Ski Area. The Back Bowls lie within the Alpental Ski Area use permit, but have some additional rules of use and require a more self reliant mindset . The true backcountry lies outside of the ski area boundary and is not managed by the ski area. Hazards, both in the Back Bowls and in the backcountry; including large cliffs, obstacles, changing snow conditions and avalanche-prone slopes, are unmarked. The Alpental Back Bowls and the backcountry are not actively patrolled by the Alpental Ski Patrol.

www.fs.usda.gov/main/mbs/passes-permits/event-commercial

From my reading this I see that going up the Lot 4 lot is perfectly OK hiking and with a pup. However, forest rules would state that a dog SHOULD be on leash. I have a pup, and take her out off-lease in the national forest when touring, but I try to avoid popular area's like this. I do believe that Lot4 should NOT be used for touring from and should be considered as part of Summit's parking as that area is gated off after the resort is closed which leads me to believe that the area there is private. Perhaps a parking pass for ski pass holders would be in order to help with some of this?