Ski areas limiting access to terrain

With many Washington ski areas publishing uphill policies, sometimes limiting or eliminating access to areas - and after being accosted by the staff at the stevens pass nordic center while trying to access some terrain, I started to wonder what kind of deal these places really have with the forest service. I filed a FOIA request for the stevens pass special use permit to see what control over federal land ski areas really have. It took a year, but the forest service did send it to me - not nearly as interesting of a read as I had hoped, but I can find no language giving ski areas any ability to limit access to anything within the special permit area without additional permission from the forest service. I would love a lawyer's opinion if anyone is so inclined.

Part 1: dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9144387/Stev...ermit%20part%201.PDF
Part 2: dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9144387/Stev...ermit%20part%202.PDF

The only relevant section of the permit I can find is:
"Except for any restrictions that the holder and the authorized officer agree are necessary to protect the installation and operation of authorized improvements, the permit area shall remain open to the public for all lawful purposes."

My FOIA requests was for all related documentation, and there were no other documents detailing any restrictions the authorized officer and the permit holder agreed to. Does forcing someone to buy a lift ticket 'protect the installation and operation of authorized improvements'? This seems pretty vague, I'm not sure what 'protect' means here. I would hope this means the ski area has to get forest service approval in order to limit access to anything every time, and that limitation should be documented and easily accessible to the public.

The only thing I know of giving ski areas the ability to limit access is there is a Washington statute that says it's a misdemeanor to ski on a closed run, with no other caveats (i.e a ski area can't close a run to some people, a la keep it open for paying customers and block skinning).

RCW 79A.45.070
"A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if the person knowingly skis in an area or on a ski trail, owned or controlled by a ski area operator, that is closed to the public and that has signs posted indicating the closure."

I just submitted requests for the summit, mt. baker & crystal, it will be interesting to see if there is anything different.

Restricting access seems to be all the rage for ski areas these days.  There are basically 2 reasons for this.  The first is conman sense safety.  NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WILL OBJECT TO REAL CONCERNS IN THIS REGARD!  The second reason is trumpish greed, high on freebasing money. 


Do the math.... If you have 4,000 people laying down $100 a pop for a ticket and then buying food, beer, lessons, repair work, very high priced gear, etc... Somebody is raking in close to half a mill that day.  Then add to it the lust for building condo cities, that they sell over, and over, and over again, in watersheds that would be better off not disturbed. This is what greed is jonesing about when they cry for "Mine, Mine, Mine." 

If not for climbing skiers, there would never have been any ski areas.  The only bastion protecting climbing access, is people refusing to allow greed to steal everything in sight!  No freebaser, high on money, is ever going to quit of their own accord.  Safety is one thing, greed is quite another.  Just remember.... Downhill skiers are required to avoid people and obstacles below them and only idiots play in an avi zone. 

People should refuse to allow long standing safe access to be closed to the public.  The only thing that can save that access for future backcountry skiers is current backcounty skiers refusing to allow historic access to be stolen!

Powder to the People!

Do the math.... If you have 4,000 people laying down $100 a pop for a ticket and then buying food, beer, lessons, repair work, very high priced gear, etc... Somebody is raking in close to half a mill that day.  Then add to it the lust for building condo cities, that they sell over, and over, and over again, in watersheds that would be better off not disturbed. This is what greed is jonesing about when they cry for "Mine, Mine, Mine." 

Ever work at a ski area in a management capacity where you were responsible for the operations budget and PL reporting?

The vague language is intentional by the Forest Service to allow ski areas to determine what constitutes a safety issue. Washington law has nothing to do with Federal land permitting. Listening to ski area(ski patrol) concerns and respecting them will keep what limited access you have.

Right now several reasons for limiting uphill traffic:
Avalanche Control;
Danger to paying public due to uphill traffic not staying off to one side;
Not respecting inbounds closures.

For everyone who ignores the policies of the ski areas, dozens of other skiers pay for the restrictions that follow. Seth Waterfall tried to warn people of impending restrictions @Crystal and was ignored.Now they have a stricter policy with limited access. People ignored Alpental's request and now there is no uphill traffic when the area is closed.

I am volunteering to set an uphill route to Source Lake so we can avoid future conflict with paying riders coming down inbounds runs. Come join me next Tues.

I also think it is time to cut the umbilical cord actually tour away from the ski areas and stop whining about how a business manages their lease. The lease/permit is an agreement made after a significant investment by the ski company to meet the policies of the USFS. That gives them the right to their vague language to manage their ski area. This means making policies that keep libertarian, your land is my land think folks out and be inline with the law.

Make good choices!

The vague language is intentional by the Forest Service to allow ski areas to determine what constitutes a safety issue. Washington law has nothing to do with Federal land permitting.  Listening to ski area(ski patrol) concerns and respecting them will keep what limited access you have.

Right now several reasons for limiting uphill traffic:
Avalanche Control;
Danger to paying public due to uphill traffic not staying off to one side;
Not respecting inbounds closures.

For everyone who ignores the policies of the ski areas, dozens of other skiers pay for the restrictions that follow. Seth Waterfall tried to warn people of impending restrictions @Crystal and was ignored.Now they have a stricter policy with limited access. People ignored Alpental's request and now there is no uphill traffic when the area is closed.

I am volunteering to set an uphill route to Source Lake so we can avoid future conflict with paying riders coming down inbounds runs. Come join me next Tues.

I also think it is time to cut the umbilical cord actually tour away from the ski areas and stop whining about how a business manages their lease. The lease/permit is an agreement made after a significant investment by the ski company to meet the policies of the USFS. That gives them the right to their vague language to manage their ski area. This means making policies that keep libertarian, your land is my land think folks out and be inline with the law.

Make good choices!

Thank you

I also think it is time to cut the umbilical cord actually tour away from the ski areas and stop whining about how a business manages their lease.

I fully support this line of thinking and encourage further developments in this direction. Unfortunately in the 542 corridor the only road that is maintained above the snowline is the highway to the ski area which leads to competition for resources (parking). The only other way to get up high is via snowmobile but the FS is trying to cut our access there too. It would be great to get skier sourced and funded access to the alpine, places like Skyline Divide and Wells Creek Road come to mind.